Earlier this year, the State of Georgia passed a new law requiring a valid photo id before a person could cast a ballot. From the moment the bill was proposed, advocates for the “poor” (ie, the lazy) and minority rights groups complained that the law reeked of Jim Crow. These groups which included: AARP, the NAACP, ACLU, Common Cause and others, argued that the Photo ID amounted to nothing more than a poll tax, which were made unconstitutional with the ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964. In the state of Georgia a driver’s license or state id costs $20 for 5 years or $35 for 10 years. Are we to believe that $4 per year is an undue burden for the populace? Opponents argue the bill was designed to suppress the votes of minorities and the poor because the legislature is under GOP control and the poor generally vote Democratic. It seems preposterous to fathom that GOP leaders could envision that requiring a Photo ID would result in a suppression of democratic votes. What the Photo ID commotion really is is another Mussolini-esque non-issue, designed simply to garner media attention and prove to their core Democratic constituents that their leaders are acting in their best interests.

Further demonstrating that Photo ID circus is a non-issue is the fact that those who find it cost prohibitive to acquire a state id, will be provided with one FREE OF CHARGE. So essentially it is a poll tax of zero dollars and zero cents, but apparently even zero is too high for the poor and the elderly. In most every other developed nation on Earth a Photo ID is required to cast a vote, yet in Georgia such a requirement is considered a political attack. Regardless of this, a Federal Judge in Rome, Georgia sided with the ACLU and its partners, arguing that the photo ID "unduly burdens the right to vote.” Generally, one can expect the state will appeal the decision and it will likely end up before the Supreme Court. Regular Phalanx readers are no doubt confused, as the Phalanx generally takes a libertarian view on such government intrusions and today will be no exception. The Photo ID requirement IS a government intrusion and if mandated by law, tramples on our established right to privacy. It is NOT, however, a burden on minorities and the poor and because ID opponents do not object to use on civil libertarian grounds, one must take exception with their reasoning and naturally conclude that their objections are tantamount to smoke and mirrors, designed to draw attention away from genuine issues that should be of concern to their constituents. Voting is not a right and the state has an obligation to ensure that elections are devoid of fraud. A birth certificate or another non-photo document, does not prove categorically that a person is who they say they are. Unless someone can offer another suggestion, which satisfies the need for electoral fairness, with established privacy concerns, then we argue some privacy must be relinquished in order to exercise the privilege of voting.
Link to AJC news article
Link to Georgia Dept. of Driver Services