“I’m sorry, can I see your ID?”
I shuffled through my purse and pulled it out, slipping the plastic card across the table. The woman read my birth date and turned me away.
“I’m sorry but you have to be 18 to get a library card without a parent’s signature,” the librarian informed me.
It was a month before my eighteenth birthday and I needed resources for my 40-page senior thesis, but I couldn’t check out books without Daddy’s signature.
Fast forward a year. I’m standing in line to cast my very first vote while I was home from college. When it came to my turn the gentleman asked me for my name. He scrolled down the list. He asked for my address. I rattled it off. Then, with a friendly smile, he handed me my ballot.
You know what’s wrong with this picture. You need to present your ID at the airport, the hospital, to buy Advil or Nyquil at CVS, to withdraw money at the bank, to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and lottery tickets, to rent a car, etc., etc., but you don’t need an ID to vote. At least, in many states, until now.
Finally, a U.S. district court ruled that Arizona and Kansas can pass voter ID laws and the federal government has no right to stop them. It’s a relief to see the feds actually respecting states’ rights for a change.
Both states were also permitted to require proof of citizenship before an individual can vote, which also deserves a round of applause, particularly for the following reason:
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the ruling will help clean up voter rolls. About 2,000 people have submitted federal forms in the state but haven’t proved their citizenship, he said.
Democrats claim their argument against voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements rests on convenience: fewer people will turn out to vote if they have to bring their ID with them. False.
Since most people vote either on their way to work or on their way home, chances of them stopping by the local voting center without their IDs are slim. Americans are accustomed to pulling out their ID for everything. Once when I was clearly enduring a cold, a clerk not only checked my ID, but checked my boyfriend’s ID as well to make sure we were both over 18 before I bought Nyquil. The “convenience” debate stands on sinking sand.
We all know that’s not the real reason Democrats fight these laws. They do it for the purpose of hiding voter fraud.
With the Arizona and Kansas precedent set, hopefully more states that were previously concerned about the feds’ refusal to recognize their voter ID laws will instead follow these states’ example. The more frightened liberals get about the upcoming mid-term elections, the more prone to fudging the truth through voter fraud they will get. These laws are hardly radical – they are absolutely necessary.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.