No ID?

So I read these stories espousing that requiring an ID to vote is “unfair to minorities” and discriminatory or racist. Really? Requiring someone to prove that they are eligible to vote is racist?

I understand that in the past there were blatant attempts to keep people from voting such as proof of literacy, poll taxes, and recitation of laws. Those were certainly aimed at keeping a certain portion of the population from voting and absolutely unacceptable.

In fact, the term, grandfathered (in reference to law, not that weird thing that happens in some people’s basements) comes from this very issue. When the people passed the law that said you must be literate or knowledgeable of the law to vote, they realized that they were about to exclude many of the people they were actually counting on for votes. So, to fix this little problem, if your grandfather was eligible to vote, so were you. This allowed the illiterate white folks to vote, while keeping the newly free black men on the outside looking in.

Oddly enough, our founding fathers had a much more stringent set of guidelines for voters, and this was a time when, in many states, only white men could vote. Their plan was that only white, male landowners over the age of 21 should vote. If you read the headline version, it seems obvious that this was to keep themselves in control. But let’s dig a little deeper, shall we? If these people wanted to keep strict control, Washington would have listened to those who suggested that the country start as a monarchy…he was never actually offered the opportunity to be king. No one had authority to do such a thing anyhow…or why would they write in to law so many things protecting individual rights?

The idea of landowners being the only voters was originally thought of as a method to keep those who didn’t have much from having their votes swayed/purchased by the wealthy. Also, the thought was that those with nothing would start voting themselves benefits to be paid for by others (pretty intuitive, those founding fathers). Also, this policy served to keep the voting to people who had put down roots and established themselves with a true concern for their community, as it often took quite some time to become a landowner. Side note, in some colonies, women land owners could also vote.

But, as with most things, this turned into something corrupted and became a power play that was rightfully broken up and the right to vote was afforded to the general population. (Although, until we get rid of delegates and electoral colleges, we aren’t truly voting. I live in a state that will be voting for whatever side of ham the Democrats put on the ticket, which makes my vote for president absolutely meaningless). I would put forth the idea that voting is the most important right/freedom we have. With this importance, should come some strict controls, yes?

Apparently not. The “racist” argument is that this law would be unfair to those for whom it is a hassle to get an ID…yet there is no outcry about having an ID to apply for Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, a job, or welfare…to buy alcohol or cigarettes…so isn’t this an unfair burden on minorities? Aren’t these policies then also racist?

“Oh, it isn’t just racist!” they yell,  it is hard for seniors as well…really? So how then do these seniors apply for Social Security? How do they get senior discounts? Reverse mortgages? All things you need an ID to accomplish…but no outpouring of rage here.

The people against this law act like they are caught off guard about election timing. I would also venture that the people fighting this law…all have ID’s and are just pandering to a certain segment of the voting population. Why do I say that? Well, if getting an ID is too much of a time drain away from work and too hard to accomplish in time for the election, how do these same people have time for protests and news conferences and hearings? Exactly…another issue brought forth by the “righteous” who are strictly in this battle to gain support from a demographic…nothing more.