These days, just logging on to an online bank account requires you to navigate a maze of passwords, PIN numbers and questionnaires about your first pet, your mother’s maiden name and your first boyfriend’s older sister’s favorite pet.
So we were a little surprised to discover on Election Day that in some Oklahoma counties, casting a vote for president of the United States required no more personal identification than walking up to a polling place and saying, “Hi, my name is…”
That’s why we’re glad Oklahoma Republicans have filed a bill that would require voters to show some form of ID when they cast their ballots. (See page 2 for details.)
The proposed law won’t be so strict as to be a barrier to voting. Every registered voter is issued a voter ID card, so Oklahomans start their voting careers with sufficient ID provided to them. Lost your voter ID card? Whip out a driver’s license. Lost your license? Bet you have a Social Security card. Can’t find your Social? Get a passport.
Requiring voters, all of whom are over the age of 18 and the vast majority of whom have multiple forms of ID, to produce some proof that they are who they say they are is the only responsible course of action in a country plagued by identity theft and charges of voter fraud.
Particularly in local elections, in which a handful of votes can determine which representative heads for Oklahoma City or which candidate assumes a mayoral position, every vote counts. The slight risk that requiring ID might discourage some voters is far outweighed by the benefits of ensuring that every vote is accurate.
We’re certainly not in favor of voting restrictions that require voters to do anything more than show up with an ID on them. Identification policies designed to force people off voter rolls because the names they are known by don’t match federal databases (for a Matthew who goes by Matt, for example) should go the way of literacy tests and poll taxes.
But the proposed Oklahoma law wouldn’t impose any unnecessary burdens on voters. It would simply require that they prove who they are using a government-issued ID — which is actually a lot easier than being interrogated about your first boyfriend’s older sister’s favorite pet.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
blah 3 years, 5 months ago
So you want to make voting harder for low income people? How Republican of you.
kcreasey 3 years, 5 months ago
I went into the polling place to vote on Election Day and expected to have my ID checked for such an important occasion; it wasn't necessary. I'm glad that this is finally being fixed.
kdbp1213 3 years, 5 months ago
good idea. i always voluntarily present ID when buy prescription medicine, vote, pay with a check or credit/debit card, etc. we have too much ID theft and "I'm buying for my sister/friend/mom, etc." now-a-days............
Nimmeron 3 years, 5 months ago
I must ask: how does requiring one present proof of identification make voting harder for low-income citizens? Surely they already have a drivers license or other form of legal identification, seeing as how they are earning an income and federal and state law requires the employer keep copies of the employees proof of identification. So to argue that polling stations require proof of identification places an unjust burden on low-income people seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction to the Republican status of the bill's proposers, and less of a well thought out analysis of the proposal.