Contrary to opponents’ representations, the voter identification legislation considered by the Texas Legislature this spring is a big deal. Proof positive was the 4-day Democrat filibuster that blocked its passage earlier this week.
The legislative question is essentially, “Should Texas require photo IDs at voting booths?”
Democrat critics have called the legislation a solution in search of a problem. However, an innocuous and superfluous “solution” is not beaten back by a rarely used legislative weapon. It is easily passed, albeit with smirks and rolling eyes. There must be something deeper going on here.
To critics, that something deeper is attempted “voter suppression.” Adding requirements to the voting process, they say, disenfranchises certain voters. Minorities, the elderly, the disabled, for example, are less likely to possess photo identification. Therefore, the bill would impair their ability to vote.
This argument deserves questioning:
1. Did the arguers use the same argument when voter registration cards were first proposed? Didn’t that idea disenfranchise people who couldn’t conveniently get such cards: i.e., those who could not acquire, read or complete an application? What about those who didn’t have an envelope or a postage stamp?
I wasn’t around for that debate, but I hope the opponents of the current voter ID legislation had the intellectual honesty to make such arguments then.
2. Even if in-person voter impersonation is not a widespread problem (a debatable assumption), what is the harm in utilizing modern technology to advance systematic accuracy? Corporations, schools, governments, non-profit organizations, etc., of any significant size already utilize photo ID badges for security and access purposes. The Texas legislators’ own staffers are required to wear such ID in the Capitol.
The technology within the proposed legislation is not the wave of the future – it is the wave of the present – and it is quickly becoming the wave of the past as fingerprint, retinal and DNA identification methods progress.
3. Is doubting the ability or determination of certain population segments to obtain required identification an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations? Would true advocates not want to empower such citizens to modernize their identification methods so that, perhaps, one day they could not just vote, but also open a bank account, drive a car or fly on an airplane?
Rather than woodenly opposing the voter ID legislation, Democrats should help every population segment obtain common identification tools.
In conclusion, something deeper is going on here besides pictures on plastic. Fortunately, it is not the voter suppression of which critics speak. Unfortunately, it is the opportunity suppression that they infer.