Photo Fraud

Let’s see a show of hands. How many of you think that we ought to have to show a photo identification when we arrive at the polling booth to cast our sacred ballot? Apparently, the Republicans and Democrats in our state’s Legislature are going to quibble over this bill again at the upcoming 2009 session. This debate seems to divide the Legislature right down partisan lines. Republicans say that this is necessary to prevent voter fraud and non-citizens from voting. Democrats contend that it is discriminatory toward the lower class and minorities, and that fraudulent voting is not that serious of a problem. Here’s the question I find asking myself: “Why not?” Why shouldn’t you have to show a photo ID when you vote? I am a young person, who has paid little attention to the world of politics, and I was actually surprised to find out that you did not have to. I mean, you have to show a photo ID to do just about everything else in this society. Is there less responsibility involved in voting than, say, renting a movie at Blockbuster?

Some say that having to produce such identification is discriminatory against lower income citizens and minorities, arguing that for this group of people, it can be difficult to obtain. I am finding it hard to buy into this reasoning. While it may be a bit more difficult for some to make the trip to the DPS and dish out the 15 bucks it costs to get a photo ID, I find it hard to believe that it really is beyond someone’s means. If all else fails, Capitol Metro is always there to take care of any transportation issues one might have (if you can get to the polling booth, then you can get to the DPS). I cannot think of any good reasons why a responsible adult, who is a citizen, would not be carrying a photo ID. You absolutely have to possess one to function in society. It sounds to me like something people say when they don’t want to put forth the effort to do something.

Then there is the argument that the bill discriminates against minorities? Someone is going to have to explain this one to me. This is outright ridiculousness! Why on earth is this argument targeting minorities? What is it about minorities that makes it hard to get a photo…. oh wait a minute… oh no, they didn’t. Are they…? No… They’re not suggesting that illegal aliens should be able to cast a ballot, are they?? Of course they are. And they are admitting to that as soon as they make the argument that having to show a photo ID discriminates against minorities. I had no idea that you could put your foot in your mouth BEFORE you opened it. To me, it seems quite evident that the Democrats in the Texas Legislature are attacking this bill to secure votes for their party. By arguing that voter fraud is not that big of a deal, so we ought to let it slide without taking corrective measures is flat out irresponsible. It seems like those who stand by this line of reasoning are willing to sacrifice the integrity of an election for votes for their party's candidates.

Reaching to Make a Point?

Now, I’m all for people being self-sufficient and not using government services as a crutch or excuse to be lazy, but Bill Jolly, the author of this editorial I found on the Lone Star Times blogsite, may be a little too quick to bring down the gavel in this case. His article is commenting on an October 16th story from the Houston Chronicle’s website reporting that FEMA is denying claims of some victims of Hurricane Ike whose needs have not yet been met and are on the verge of becoming homeless. Jolly is contending that the Houston Chronicle’s editorial staff is liberally biased despite their claims that they are neutral. He’s using this article as evidence of his contention. I am not going to argue against his claim. It does appear that the article does have somewhat of an agenda that it is promoting; and for the most part, I think that his argument is justified. However, there is one aspect of Jolly’s rant that strike’s me a tad hypercritical. He asserts that Joyce Washington is entirely at fault for her situation and that the Houston Chronicle’s editors are intentionally spinning this as a sob story (which may very well be the case). Washington’s situation is that her FEMA claim is being denied on account that he residence is inhabitable, but Child Protective Services will take her children away if they find they are living in such an unsafe environment.

Jolly’s reaction to this is “How much you want to bet it isn’t habitable because she hasn’t gotten off her arse and cleaned the place up?”—which is normally the same kind of reaction I would have. But in the article, it says that her ceiling came down. To me, that sounds like a mess that me might not be able to be entirely responsible for. Who knows what the situation is with the apartment complex that she was living in—or the status of the building for that matter. This may actually be a legitimate case where someone is getting screwed by FEMA. One this is for certain. There is definitely something awry if FEMA claims her residence is “habitable”, but CPS would not let her kids live there. Despite the fact that I agree with his belief that people ought to get up off their “arse” and help themselves instead of relying on the government, I’m given the impression that Bill Jolly is being overly judgmental in this instance in order to help his case that the Houston Chronicle is written by liberals.

The second women’s story appears to be less complex. It seems that her situation is being portrayed as one in which she is a helpless victim being shunned by the FEMA and the Red Cross when in fact, it looks like she can easily take care of her own situation. Her FEMA claim application is being held up because she cannot provide proper identification as her purse was stolen. It is not that difficult to obtain identification. The article is also telling us that she has no way of getting around. She is quoted in the article as saying, "Even if (the FEMA adjuster) called and said OK, we're going to go out and look at your property, what am I going to do? Thumb it?" Um, ever heard of public transportation? Basically, I agree with Bill Jolly, but I do think he may be reacting a little too harshly in the case of Mrs. Washington.