Opinion

To ID or not to ID — keeping elections clean

The Issue: AG Eric Holder’s opposition to laws that require voters to provide photo identification.

***

Michael A. Walsh is correct — the complaints from AG Eric Holder about voter-ID laws are just politics and have nothing to do with protecting the right to vote (“Behind Holder’s War on Voter-ID Laws,” PostOpinion, Dec. 15).

Consider this: Before a citizen can enter the US Department of Justice’s office to complain about the need to produce a photo ID before voting, that citizen will need to produce a photo ID to gain entry. The department requires photo ID from all who wish to enter as part of its security regimen.

Is Holder trying to suppress citizen complaints? Of course not. The photo ID is just a reasonable requirement to maintain security whether it is for voting or for entering the DOJ offices.

Jeff Aronson

Greenwich, Conn.

***

Walsh states, “If you want to buy over-the-counter cold medicine at your local drugstore, chances are you have to show a photo ID to do it. Same if you want to get on a plane, rent a car or open a bank account.”

But everything listed above is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

You have no constitutional right to cold medicine, airplane trips, rental cars or bank accounts. But you do have a right to cast a ballot, if you are a citizen and of the age of majority.

Nobody is against reasonable measures to prevent voter fraud, although the actual incidence of in-person voter fraud, as evidenced by multiple investigations throughout the country, is about as frequent as somebody winning the Powerball jackpot.

What Holder should be against is unreasonable barriers put in place to obtain the necessary IDs states mandate. But that’s exactly what legislatures across the country have been up to — closing DMVs or limiting their hours, requiring original birth certificates and restricting or changing voter-registration rules for college students.

The intent of these laws is clear — you’re endorsing the rights of one group of citizens over another for electoral advantage.

It’s wrong, undemocratic and un-American.

Michael Richardson

Hoboken, NJ

***

Holder fears “disproportionate impact” on various groups of Americans if they are required to obtain valid photo IDs.

Holder insultingly believes that some folks are incapable of sacrificing a couple of hours of their time or the round-trip bus, subway or carfare to obtain a valid photo ID in order to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.

Meanwhile, he never considers the “disproportionate impact” that voter fraud and voter theft have on other Americans who have their votes stolen or canceled out by people who are ineligible to vote.

I would gladly donate round-trip transportation money or escort the elderly to help them obtain a valid photo ID, regardless of their party. I’m sure many Americans would volunteer to do likewise.

Cathy Vasilakos

Brooklyn

***

The question of whether or not a citizen should have to show ID to vote should be a no- brainer if we actually want free and fair elections.

Of course, one can barely leave the house without photo ID any more, so how many people of voting age are unable to prove their identity?

The fact that President Obama is from Chicago most likely plays into this. Chicago is, after all, legendary for alleged voter fraud, and Obama will do anything to get re-elected.

Rick Meyer

Pinehurst, NC

***

The majority of Americans are tired of seeing their votes canceled out by fraudulent voting. To accept any utility bill as proof of residency is ridiculous.

Photo IDs should be mandatory, and the only reason the Democrats fight this is to win elections.

The song and dance about trying to make it hard for minorities or senior citizens to vote is a farce. Anyone who truly wants to vote will do whatever it takes to get a photo ID.

It’s time we demand honest elections.

Marilyn Beasley

Joplin, Mo.