Showing photo ID should be uniform

Published 9:00 pm Monday, October 23, 2006

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that a law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot as unconstitutional. I’ll agree that we have a right, if not a duty, to vote, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have “reasonable” requirements to exercise that right. We are required to have a picture on our driver’s license, and must show picture identification to purchase liquor or cigarettes.

Let’s look for a moment at the Second Amendment. Today, some in modern society insist on “reasonable controls” on gun ownership. For instance, you must produce valid identification to initiate a gun purchase, and the ensuing instant background check. You can’t own a gun if you’ve been convicted of a felony, or even accused of domestic violence. We can’t own a fully-automatic firearm without an extensive background check and an expensive federal tax stamp. And, we can’t legally carry a concealed weapon, again, without submitting to a FBI background check, all of this to exercise a right guaranteed to us with the Second Amendment.

I have looked through both the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I find nothing that sets standards for voting. In fact, I found nothing that gives us the right to vote. I found in the Bill of Rights, only amendments that dealt with voting and discrimination, i.e. preventing one from voting due to their sex or color.

Courts and liberals can’t have it both ways, either allow states to require photo identification to vote or drop the bulk of the controls for gun ownership.

Bob Kellogg

Arlington