Since becoming eligible to vote more than 50 years ago, my husband and I have rarely, if ever, missed voting in an election. We presented our identification to the town clerk where we lived in order to register and faced an official on voting day, stating our names and address to receive our ballots.

Now, a group appears to be mounting a voter ID (voter suppression) referendum. The proposed list of acceptable photo IDs does not include student IDs. So, out-of-state students who don’t drive a car to campus and wish to vote where they reside are out of luck.

And why prevent authorized third parties from delivering absentee ballots other than to disenfranchise homebound folks or those living in any sort of an institution? Why would a single secured drop box be mandated as equal treatment for both Portland (most populous) and Wytopitlock (low population), other than to make reaching the box more difficult for people they don’t want voting?

One supporter of the ID requirement reportedly attempted to normalize the change by noting she had to show ID to buy spray paint, and therefore “it’s no big deal.” This is the wrong analogy. We should look to our rule of law in which we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We are presumed innocent of voter fraud unless until there is some evidence we’ve committed fraud.

Republicans wouldn’t need to suppress the vote in order to win elections if they’d develop policies that benefited voters’ lives.

Ann Morrill
South Portland