Abelog, run by Springfield's liberal radio talk show host Jim Leach, discussed the move towards requiring photo identification to vote:
Maybe I'm missing something here -- and this probably explains why I only finished as runner-up in the Best of Springfield's "Best Liberal" category -- but is there a good reason in this day and age why any adult of voting age would not have a photo ID? And maybe I'm betraying my sheltered white middle-class able-bodied not-old-yet existence, but how the hell does anyone function in society without a photo ID?
Interesting comments, too, with some of the most cogent arguments against requiring an ID that I've seen.
It's the great gap between those like you and I who can't imagine living like that and those who actually do.
One thing to keep in mind is that the recommendation isn't just for a state issued id--but the REAL ID ID. Given the extra barriers to getting a REAL ID, this is a horrible idea. I can support a rule for State ID with exemptions for those who can produce some other sort of ID such as a Voter ID Card or a Utility bill and the match to the signature. More than anything we need people younger than 75 to be manning the polls so they can actually read the signature or the ID and be effective.
You aleady have to show official ID to get registered as a voter or vote the first time if you signed up with motor voter.
A picture (and signature) voter ID card obtained using current standards might help without all the problems and hassles of a REAL ID. It would also come in handy as that second picture id that is sometimes required. A local ID to support the state ID.
It should be much easier and cheaper now with digital technology to continue printing everything on paper, but add a picture and signature.
Of course, some strict privacy laws to protect against government abusing such IDs and data would be the appropriate first step.