Nathan’s rationale on voter ID misses the mark

 In Joe Nathan’s opinion piece (Oct. 11) to vote no for the voter photo ID amendment, his rationale is off the mark. He cleverly remade the word freedom into the right to vote.

Sorry Joe, but they are not the same and don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.

My 16-year-old son has freedom but not the right to vote. Washington and his rag-tag army fought for freedom but not necessarily the right to vote. If they had, the founders of this nation would have created for us a democracy, rather than a republic of which the populace didn’t actually get to vote for their senators, or the president, and the prerequisite of having a certain amount of property would not have been put on those otherwise eligible to vote. And “those thousands of guys who died at Normandy, Iwo Jima or (fill in the blank)” were fighting for freedom, not the right to vote.

We do agree that the right to vote is a cherished possession. However, if voting gives memory and honor to those that fought and died for our freedom, is it really too much to ask the citizens who they fought for to provide a photo ID when they vote?

Mr. Nathan says “there seems to be no widespread evidence of voter fraud.” The truth is, it doesn’t take much fraud when elections are as close as they often are to corrupt the entire vote.

When about half the voters are disenfranchised by the counting of a few improperly cast ballots, their rights are violated much more than those inconvenienced for having to get a photo ID. For something so “sacred,” as Mr. Nathan describes the right to vote, is it really wise to wait until we have widespread evidence of voter fraud before we try to prevent it?

I believe the lives of those that fought for our freedom are worth our vigilance to safeguard our privilege to vote. And the honor our veterans deserve is not for us to take and use to promote a political party machine or special interests. Voting yes for the amendment is voting responsibly!

Ron Huebsch, Princeton

up arrow