Requiring identification to vote in Oklahoma not only would authenticate the process but streamline it

May 07, 2008 12:47 am

— RE: Editorial of Monday, April 21
The Editor’s opinion that the proposed law to require an ID to vote is not needed is naive and unsubstantiated.
Certainly, it is naive to think that, in these days of identity theft, presence of millions of illegal immigrants, and rampant fraud, some sort of identification for the most important process of democracy is not needed and useful.
Of course, the editors are not aware of any “big question about voter fraud or voter irregularities in Oklahoma,” because without any means of identification there is no practical means for detecting such fraud and irregularities. “No glitches in the ballot system” and “hanging chads” in Florida refers to the manner of voting and is not relevant to voter fraud or identification.
I submit that identification not only would authenticate the process but streamline it.
When a voter exhibits identification, the election worker not only validates that person but more quickly locates the name on the list by seeing the name spelling.
The editors accept and endorse the need for first time voters to carry their voter registration card, but somehow equate such a requirement of others to delay and imposition.
Obviously, a signature is no identification at all. If failure to remember or to carry an identification document will frustrate and prevent voters from exercising that right, perhaps, they deny this important right its proper respect. Most drive to the polls so must carry a driver’s license anyway. I agree that the bill apparently authorizes too many forms of identification (copy of utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, etc.), but by this argument the writer inadvertently justifies the necessity for a national ID card.
Just one misused identity from a discarded magazine address label blowing in the wind may very well needlessly disenfranchise a sincere, law-abiding voter.
Bill Halstead, Enid