It isn\u2019t broke, so why break it? \u00a0Iowa has a great voting system. \u00a0There isn\u2019t a problem, except for encouraging more people to vote. \u00a0Active voters strengthen our democracy. \u00a0Eagar candidates needing to win votes have to listen to a variety of groups and diverse interests. \u00a0Requiring a photo ID weakens our system.<\/p>\n
It costs money to have a photo ID. \u00a0When you get on this road standards need to be set, only certain IDs are accepted. \u00a0It is the very voter that needs representation that gets eliminated by what amounts to a poll tax.<\/p>\n
Why only make small unconstitutional changes to an excellent system? \u00a0We could require a test before people vote. \u00a0Educated voters would vote in the \u201cright\u201d candidates. \u00a0As long as we\u2019re looking at education, how about requiring a high school diploma\u2014that would encourage and reward young voters to remain in high school. \u00a0But, do young people even have enough life experience to vote? \u00a0The \u201cwrong\u201d candidates keep getting elected. \u00a0Why not go back to being age 21 to vote? \u00a0As long as we\u2019re going back\u2014was it really a very good idea to let women vote? \u00a0It is just another annoying demographic that candidates have to support. \u00a0Since we\u2019re exploring difficult demographics, older voters are a pain. \u00a0With retirement comes way too much time on their hands. \u00a0They tend to get involved politically. \u00a0There should also be a ceiling on the voting age requirement. \u00a0After all, some of these voters may have Alzheimer\u2019s or dementia. \u00a0This would explain why the wrong people keep get elected. \u00a0It was so much easier when only white male landowners could vote.<\/p>\n
Photo identification is a needless accompaniment to the voting process, and insisting that Iowa have a law requiring a photo ID is just as needless.\u00a0 We have no rampant voting fraud in this state.<\/p>\n
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court<\/a> upheld an Indiana law that required photo identification at the polls.\u00a0 In Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd<\/em><\/a>., 553 US ____ (2008), Justice Kennedy turned down a facial challenge to a law passed by the Indiana Legislature that required a voter to present a photo ID in order to vote.\u00a0 (A facial challenge is one in which a law is questioned on its face, as opposed to one that is challenged in an \u201cas applied\u201d situation.)<\/p>\n Justice Kennedy and the majority on the Court did not take into account some of the impractical implications of this absurd requirement.\u00a0 A married couple, one of whom is an election official at the polls, will be required to insist that the spouse show identification when voting.\u00a0 But what\u2019s worse is that that same election official will have to ask friends for identification.\u00a0 Can you imagine the hurt feelings, the accusations, and the humility that will surface because of this?\u00a0 \u201cShe just wanted to check my age!\u201d\u00a0 \u201cHe\u2019s known me since the 1st<\/sup> grade.\u00a0 \u201cThe nerve of her asking me for identification. I don\u2019t want to vote anymore if I have to show an ID.\u00a0 It\u2019s degrading.\u201d<\/p>\n The trust of the American voting system is at risk here.\u00a0 Voting is not a security risk.\u00a0 Voting cannot be compared to buying beer, boarding an airplane, or cashing a check.\u00a0 Voting is a fundamental right, like worshipping in a church, synagogue or mosque of your choice.\u00a0 Government intrusion into our fundamental rights has gone far enough as it is.<\/p>\n There are so many hurdles a person must jump in order to vote under Indiana law.\u00a0 In his dissent<\/a>, Justice Souter covers a long list.\u00a0 The concept of some who think this is no big deal (obtaining photo identification) is out-of-touch with the reality of the situation.<\/p>\n In Souter\u2019s closing statement he states that \u201cthe state interests fail to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote, and the law imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.\u201d\u00a0 Justice Souter would have held the law unconstitutional.<\/p>\n Copyright \u00a9 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.\u00a0 All rights reserved.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Iowa has a great voting system. There isn\u2019t a problem, except for encouraging more people to vote. Continue reading