Minnesota will have a public vote on amending the state Constitution to add the requirement for a photo ID when voting. The rhetoric is hot on both sides, of course.
This morning, it - and the marriage amendment - came up in a conversation with a very left-leaning cow-orker. He asked my opinion on the ID amendment, which I support. He, being a hard-core Democrat is dead-set against it. Why? Because, of course, poor people who may not have a driver's license might be caused hardship by having to purchase the state ID. It costs $17.25 every four years; $6 less for those 65+ years of age.
The conversation, as is often the case, went off on several tangents and eventually died out. I looked up the cost after the fact and emailed it to him. I followed up with "If the ID was issued at no cost, would you still be opposed to it?" His answer: "Yes."
I responded that his argument had just collapsed, and that it was never about the poor people at all. He had already left for the weekend, so hasn't yet replied. He'll change the subject or ignore me entirely, though; that's his standard technique when hit in the face by reality.
I also asked if he'd change his mind if I could provide him with ten proven cases of ineligible voters. He wouldn't agree to that. I said I'd change my position if he could show me 10 people who couldn't afford the state ID. His mind is made up - stop trying to confuse him with facts!
If the ID is required to exercise a right, then, in my opinion, the state should provide said ID to anyone requesting it. Driving is considered a priveledge, so charging for the license makes (only minimal) sense. (Minimal in that I already passed the test, proving I was capable of safe operation, when I was 16. Paying to renew the plastic every 4 years is unreasonable. It's purely a tax but they won't admit it.)
jb