Pictures are worth thousands of votes!

Charles Kuffner makes an argument for equal voting representation in his political blog. There is a radical difference between news reports of journalists and bloggers - namely how outspoken bloggers are about the topics at hand. Authors for newspapers that represent larger populations are constricted in what they say, whereas personally run blogs sanction blunt opinions. This is because the main task of newspapers is to spread information while blogs are tools of free speech.  Bloggers are not required to moderate their statements for the sake of others’ opinions. Blogs are also more passionate because their readers reinforce the author. If someone does not agree with a blog, they probably won’t continue reading it. Therefore, those who do read it will likely be those who agree and give praise. For these reasons, this blog appeals to readers' emotions and desire for equal opportunities.

            In Kuffner’s blog, he discusses his distaste for the pending Texas voter ID law. It is his opinion that the law is unfair and intentionally beneficial to the Republican Party.  This argument is based on the prediction that the law would disproportionately affect the poor, the elderly, college students, and minorities, (compiling a large percentage of the state’s Democratic Party,) thus making it harder for them to vote. Currently, Texas has a non-photo ID policy. This means that identification that a voter presents at the polls does not need to have a photo. The voter ID law would change the voting policy to require a valid photo ID to be presented in order to vote. Its purpose is to prevent fraud in the voting process. This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem until it’s understood that up to 18 percent of currently registered Texas voters don’t have a state issued photo ID to match their voter registration cards. With this new law, voters in the groups mentioned above would be more likely impacted, directly affecting the number of votes from the Democratic Party. A chart found on Juanita Jean’s, another political blog, shows how this law would heavily impact Democratic counties. Kuffner continues on to discuss why he thinks this law was specifically designed for Republicans’ benefit. He points out that some forms of identification, such as a college ID, would not be sufficient, while forms such as concealed-carry licenses are acceptable. He also points out that mail ballots (used more frequently by Republicans,) were left alone although that is an instance in which fraud can occur. In conclusion, he feels that the purpose of this law is, very blatantly, to reduce Democratic votes.

            I may not be quite as passionate as Kuffner, however, I do agree that this law would have an unbalanced, almost discriminatory effect. I can understand the want to improve the voting system, but I don’t think this kind of change should be made if it so drastically affects any one party and not the other. That simply isn’t fair representation. And it isn’t accurate representation of the state’s entire population if 18 percent of registered voters aren’t acknowledged. If a law like this is to be passed, steps should be taken to prevent the loss of votes. Reconsideration of what would classify as sufficient photo identification such as college IDs would help to retain voter numbers. Alternatively, the state could provide acceptable and easily accessible forms of photo IDs to those without. If the purpose of the voter ID law is truly to protect the authenticity of votes (rather than to deliberately prevent certain people from giving their opinions,) then surely there could be a more efficient way of accomplishing this.