I was disappointed to see that Senator Linda Baker recently voted “Y” for LD 197, “An Act To Strengthen Maine’s Election Laws by Requiring Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting.”
The Bangor Daily News recently quoted the sponsors of LD 197 as saying that voting should be treated the same as other activities that require proof of identity, including buying alcohol, cigarettes, or being allowed to vote in a union election. Senator Cushing was quoted as saying “Does not the privilege of voting deserve to be protected in the same manner?”
I strongly disagree with the idea that voting in an election for public office, a constitutional right of citizens, should be treated the same as buying a pack of Marlboros.
I do agree with the notion that the right to vote should be protected. But because voting is a constitutional right and buying cigarettes is not, it should stand to reason that protecting the vote is different than protecting the purchase of cigarettes.
Cigarette purchase is not a guaranteed constitutional right of citizens, it’s a lifestyle choice and Mainers can choose to erect as many barriers as they like to make cigarette purchase difficult.
Because voting is a constitutional right of citizens, unlike buying cigarettes, we don’t protect it by making it more restrictive. We protect voting by ensuring that no public institution creates inappropriate impediments like photo IDs.
Only when faced with unequivocal evidence of damaging, widespread voter fraud should our public officials even consider, as a last resort, mucking with the right to vote.
But this is not what some of our Senators are telling us. They have not shown us evidence of widespread, damaging voter fraud at a level that forces them to restrict constitutional freedoms. Instead, they are defending their bill by equating voting with buying Budweiser. I find this insulting both to the democratic process and to the collective intellect of Mainers. I will not support any voter ID legislation now or in the future and I hope you won’t either.
Dan Feldman Bowdoinham
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less