RAISE YOUR VOICE: Share your own opinion online at dallasnews.com/sendletters. Sign up for Sounding Off or submit a guest column (and include your full name and contact information) by visiting dallasnews.com/voices.
After being struck down as unconstitutional in a district court, Texas’ voter ID law was temporarily reinstated by a federal appeals court because it felt it was too close to Election Day to change the rules. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law’s reinstatement. Do you agree with the court’s ruling?
Eulaine Hall, Northwest Dallas: Of course not.
Butch Murden, Irving: The citizens’ right to vote should not be impaired. ID is paramount to ensuring only those legally entitled to vote do vote. With the porous borders we have, ID should be required.
Martha Joe Thrasher, Carrollton: Persons wanting to vote in an election should be glad to show proof they are entitled to do so.
Sam Courtney, Carrollton: We require ID for many things that are intended to be secure and private or for safety reasons. Why would voting not be included in these categories? Don’t we want to be sure there is no fraud when casting a vote for an elected office or a change to our laws and regulations? Why should a person that cannot prove their identity be allowed to perform any of these actions? It is a simple task to obtain an ID for anyone who cares enough to vote (which seems to be reducing at every election). This is not an attempt to suppress the minority vote but only a way to ensure that every vote is honest. It seems that only a criminal would argue with this law.
Anthony Bond, Irving: In the name of God’s only Heaven, no!
Nell Anne Hunt, Irving: My understanding of our democracy is that the goal is to encourage every citizen to vote. The new voter ID law of Texas makes that impossible for many of our citizens. Let’s go back to our American principles and invite everyone to the table.
Lanni Fish, Irving: I agree completely with the ruling to allow the voter ID law to stand, though I can’t say I agree with the reason they gave for temporarily reinstating the law. The appellate court stated it felt that it was too close to the November election, and might result in confusion at the polls. It seems to me that confusion could be avoided by posting notices at the polls, consisting of about three sentences, stating that no picture ID is required. If someone is confused by that, then perhaps they shouldn’t be supervising a polling place. A better reason for reinstating the law is that it’s the right thing to do. Whatever their reason, I’m glad the law will be in effect for the November elections. As for the law itself, I have never understood why anyone would object to the requirement of a picture ID in order to vote. I have to present mine several times a week for lots of things, just like everyone else.
I’m getting pretty tired of hearing the picture ID requirement referred to as a poll tax designed to keep Hispanics and blacks from voting. What garbage. If you’re wondering how to get one, check this out: dmv.org/tx-texas/id-cards.php. Read the proof of identity requirements, and you’ll find several reasons why the race-baiters and the running-scared Democrats object to the law. It would significantly deplete their pool of voters. Maybe it’s time to call their bluff, and initiate some helping hands for those who genuinely cannot get to the DPS to get an ID. Cab vouchers for those who have no transportation? That would be a start.
David Lapka, Southlake: I agree with the ruling. The 15th and 19th amendments to the constitution were intended to provide equal protection for all to vote. Voter fraud goes right to the core of obliterating that right. There are no accurate and/or necessarily representative claims as to how much fraud might occur in a Texas election, but we have recent examples with recall petitions on Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Al Franken’s election (over 1,000 felony convicts) in Minnesota where there were clear and significant examples of illegal voting. Provision of valid identification is a very small inconvenience to pay to guarantee equality when so many others in our history have paid so much more to attain it.
Connie Martin, Farmers Branch: I view this reinstatement favorably. But even more important, I think everyone who votes should be asked to prove that he/she is a valid citizen of the United States. Does holding a Green Card give them the right to vote? I doubt it, but I don’t know for sure. The possibility that unauthorized immigrants think they are eligible to vote is preposterous and detrimental to our country. Become a legal citizen and then you can vote. I hope the precinct workers have rules in place that prevent the accidental voting by unauthorized immigrants. No one has the right to vote in our country who is not a citizen.
Willis Hamilton, Southlake: I most certainly do disagree with the federal appeals court for this unreasonable order. When is “too close to election day” ever an excuse for withholding liberty and justice for all? Racism is unfortunately still alive and well in the hearts and minds of many of the nation’s leaders and citizens. We must all stand up for liberty and justice for all, or we will all fail as an unjust society crippled by the evils of racism and all the baggage it carries.
Norman Pickett, Celina and Carrollton: Absolutely not. It is very cumbersome to maintain a proper picture ID when you move around. I cannot understand why conservatives are so afraid of open voting for all residents properly registered to vote. Isn’t gerrymandering enough to deny a representative government? Is the goal to cater to certain voters only? I really prefer a United States over a divided and severely skewed un-United States.
Gary McCoy, Carrollton: I was glad to see the appeals court reverse the district court decision. However the reason given that we are too close to the election was not the reason I would have preferred. I would have preferred a decision based on law, not convenience. As a supporter of the law, I am actually glad to see that the opponents to this bill are asking the Supreme Court for an expedited decision. We need a final answer once and for all. Voting is one of our most valued freedoms. Keeping it honest is the most important function of a free republic.
Is voting as important as writing a check? Changing your address? Walking into Sam’s Club or Costco? Getting on an airplane? Or any of the other hundreds of situations that require showing a picture identification? The idea that minorities don’t have an ID is just silly. I don’t know how anyone could possibly get along in this world without some sort of a picture ID. And even supposing that were actually true, it is very easy to obtain one at no cost.
At the very least, it would keep dead people from voting.
Carolyn Rutkowski, Carrollton: No, I do not agree with the reinstatement of voter ID laws. I work as an election clerk on general election days and was happy to see the District Court rule it as unconstitutional. When the federal appeals court then turned around and reinstated the photo ID requirement, I was disappointed. Voter suppression in Texas is a huge stain added to our reputation of already questionable treatment of minorities.
Curtis Miller, Farmers Branch: Absolutely. Voting is a privilege restricted to citizens that have not had that right rescinded by law. To register to vote, a citizen must demonstrate their right to the vote by demonstrating their legal citizenship. It only follows that a person should overtly prove that they are in fact the citizen who is lawfully registered before they are allowed to vote as that person. The state has provided multiple ways for a citizen to be provided with the required identification at minimal cost. It is the civic duty of the person who wishes to vote to meet that requirement. Frankly, to not have a verifiable photo ID in this day and age is incredible.
R.E. Griffey, Farmers Branch: No, this is restricting the vote, a type of poll tax, as has been noted. If it was opening up the votes to more people, it would be acceptable.
Mike Voirin, Irving: It was obviously a politically timed move so the court was appropriate in letting the law ride for this election. I would like to see who is turned away for a lack of ID and analyze the statistics.
It is logical to me because of the transient nature of people and the propensity for false representation that we issue ID cards to pinpoint just who is voting and to ensure they are allowed to vote. The same ID could allow them to purchase a vehicle, a gun, etc. Logistically it is necessary to keep track of the hundreds of millions of people.
Mary Scarborough, Irving: I absolutely agree with the latest ruling. The Texas voter ID law is a good thing to prevent fraud, duplicate voting or voting by unqualified people. A driver license is a common form of identification and used in numerous situations. Any qualified voter who cannot get a driver license for some reason has other options for ID. I always resent it when a law approved by the people and the Legislature can be overturned by one judge or three judges.
Michael McPhail, Irving: The district court found that the law is actually a poll tax. The appeals court thought it was just peachy keen to leave it in effect during a gubernatorial election. The appeals court judges who voted to let the law go into force shamed the federal judiciary.
Harold Simmons, Carrollton: I certainly agree. And what is the difficulty in getting a photo ID? I took an 80-plus-year-old lady to the DPS driver license office and got her a card in about 30 minutes. Would a photo ID not be good for a lot of things other than voting? We like to talk about voter fraud, and it seems like this would help.
Vikas Deshmukh, Coppell: The appeals court was right in reinstating the law for November. Cancellation of the law at this late stage would have caused lot of confusion. Confusion that keeps voters away does a bigger harm than the law is supposed to have done.I fully support a voter ID system. Most mature democracies demand a photo ID from a voter. Every American should be proud to have an American photo ID. If the present process is troublesome, it needs to be improved before the 2016 elections, rather than being scrapped.
If distance is a problem, then we need mobile ID-issuing units that go to all remote towns on a planned basis. If cost is a problem, we should waive the fee for the really poor. Post offices and DMVs should have easy-to-operate photo kiosks that digitally transfer the photos to the ID-issuing office.
India, the world’s largest democracy and a developing country, has issued ID cards to hundreds of millions of its citizens. Perhaps we need to develop our capabilities to issue photo IDs to all American citizens. The voter fraud in India has reduced dramatically after ID cards were issued. In the recent Indian polls, nearly 70 percent voted. So we know that “voter ID laws lead to poor turnout,” is a politically motivated myth.
Mike Howard, Irving: Of course, I applaud the court’s current ruling and support voter ID. I support voter ID for the same reason I support having a photo ID for a passport. I support voter ID the same reason I support having to show a picture ID for flying. I support voter ID the same reason as having a photo ID for driving. I support voter ID for the same reasons as I support regulations requiring proper identification to buy alcohol or cigarettes, apply for any form of governmental assistance, cash a check, use a credit card (somewhat of a new wrinkle), and to satisfy the clerks in a doctors office who now want a picture ID when processing your paperwork. While there is a tremendous amount of tired ranting in opposition to voter ID, it has not been shown or demonstrated that voter ID suppresses anyone’s rights to cast a ballot. If it did, or could, then a rewind of the issue for consideration might be in order. The trite fable spun of the 102-year old great grandmother in a wheelchair, who is blind in one eye and cannot hear and does not have a driver’s license will be denied the right to vote, is an unadulterated strawman argument. Any voter ID legislation approved would provide for extenuating circumstances.
David Borland, Carrollton: I think the entire controversy over voter ID is solving a problem that really did not exist. I think we have very few votes from voters who should not be voting. The long lines after work on election days probably discourage more legitimate voters than voters who are not legitimate exist. And the voter ID check will make the lines longer.
Darrel VanDyke, Coppell: The most fundamental right any adult has in this country is the right to vote. To take that right away over a technicality is shameful. By simple luck of genetics, most of us have been born into a family where a picture ID was granted to us. But let’s say you weren’t that lucky and you want to vote? Sorry, now says a majority of the Supreme Court, as they have ruled that indeed discrimination is alive and well in Texas. People without enough money or desire to get a driver’s license or buy a gun are now banned from voting. Yes, the Supremes have agreed with Texas that if one has a gun permit, you can vote, but a university picture ID isn’t good enough. I suppose we could arm all students, but this might lead to other problems. Our politicians should simply fess up and say, “Look, if I don’t think you’re going to vote for me, then I won’t let you vote.” That’s what they were after, right?
Bernie Francis, Carrollton: When told a voter ID law deprives me of my freedom to vote, as an African-American it feels like a throwback to the paternalistic form of slavery. Paternalism argued that my gracious master took away my freedoms for the good of my race. Those who suggest I’m disadvantaged when asked to produce a voter ID appear to suggest I’m forever stuck on the bottom rung of society’s self-reliance ladder. I have tremendous contempt for their paternalistic attitude.
