You are required by a wide range of laws to present identification when requested by a lawful authority.
How about when exercising the most critical power bestowed upon citizens in a democracy? Shouldn't you be required to do something more than simply state to the election judge, "I'm Joe Bagadonutz"?
The counter-claim is that in this singular instance, the requirement for identification is discriminatory against minorities, the poor and the elderly.
What does it cost to get a state issued ID card even if you don't drive? They are free.
How do you claim medicare and Social Security if you are elderly without identifying yourself at some point with a valid ID and/or birth certificate? Did you never drive, get married, have children, buy a house or register for the military? How do you get old without anyone ever asking you to prove who you are?
What makes an ethnic minority any different than a Caucasian when it comes to being able to get your lazy butt down to the courthouse or driver's license bureau to get an ID card?
Now, take a look at this tortured reasoning:
DOJ Stops Texas From ID Check
Some of the math in that absolutely defies logic.
"According to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification," Perez wrote.In a binary situation you either do or do not have identification. How can you be more than 100% likely to not have identification? Does that mean you don't have ID more than someone who is only 100% likely to be without?
How did we let Jose register in the first place without identification? Does that sound like a version of an ACORN drive?