Recently, Gov. Pat McCrory signed HB 589 into law. This law will require voters to produce government-issued photo identification in order to enter the ballot box.
Few Tar Heel citizens have a problem with voters furnishing evidence to prove they are who they say they are. In fact, a poll conducted by Elon University in February found 72.2 percent of North Carolinians favor photo ID for voting.
Think of the places that currently require us to furnish photo identification. When I go into Medsource Pharmacy to pick up my prescriptions, not only must I sign an acknowledgement that I have picked the meds up, but I also must show photo ID to people who call me by my first name – and have done so for dozens of years.
But the law requires me to produce photo ID in order to pick up certain types of meds – and I do not recall a single person arguing that such a requirement made obtaining medications more difficult for the old or the poor.
I cannot board an airplane without showing photo ID. I cannot write a check in a number of businesses without producing photo ID. I am not supposed to operate my car unless I have my state-issued driver’s license, complete with photo, on my person. When people in a bar try to buy alcohol, many are “carded” and must produce a photo ID.
I am sure you can think of many other occasions when you must show photo ID.
I am in favor of anyone showing up to the polls to vote demonstrating that he or she is who he or he claims to be.
Photo ID is not limited to a driver’s license, even though I am sure most North Carolina adults do have a driver’s license. Other forms of photo ID accepted under HB 589 include a valid U.S. Passport, a military ID, a state-issued ID card for those who do not drive, a card issued by the Veterans Administration, or a tribal identification card. In addition, a person who has registered to vote within 90 days of an election can use a driver’s license or state-issued ID card from another state, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. territory.
Anything we can do to bolster the integrity of the voting process is useful.
However, HB 589 demonstrates a serious problem with our legislative process. Bills start out trying to accomplish one goal, but by the time the smoke screens clear, those bills include other provisions that have little rational connection to the initial purpose of the legislation.
HB 589 does more than require photo ID for voting – which, as I said before, I support.
The bill subtracts a week from the early voting window. Since early voting started, I have always voted as early as I could. I hate lines.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I am no longer registered to vote as a member of any political party. I am an unaffiliated voter, the closest registration I could get to independent in this state.)
The argument many raise against HB 589 is the legislation is a voter suppression bill. They point to the shortening of the early voting window as evidence for their contention. Statistics show more people of one certain party vote earlier than those of another party, some suggest.
I understand that concern. If HB 589 stems from a concern to protect the integrity of the voting process through the mechanism of photo ID, then why tamper with the early voting provision?
Another provision of this bill ends same-day registration for voting. The bill also kills straight ticket voting. In order to vote for all candidates of one party, the voter must actually vote for each candidate separately. Again, such provisions seem aimed at one particular party.
The legal challenges to HB 589 are not likely to revolve around the photo ID requirement. Shortening of the number of early voting days, ending same-day registration, and forbidding straight-ticket voting are likely to be the issues.
HB 589 began to accomplish one goal – make election fraud more difficult by requiring photo ID. The other provisions have little rational connection to the initial purpose of the legislation.
Mike Parker is a columnist for The Free Press. You can reach him at mparker16@suddenlink.net or in care of this newspaper.