« Special-delivery chuckle | Main | Dog-n-Jog a tail-wagging success »

June 16, 2008

ID photos not always accurate

This spring the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state requiring photo IDs for voters in Indiana. The purpose was to prevent voter fraud.

But photo IDs are not always good representatives of individuals. Through time most people change their hairstyles, get new glasses or are changed significantly by the aging process.

Those changes will affect identification by precinct judges who don’t know them from previous elections because the voter moved.

Surely there are better methods to prevent voter fraud it if is really taking place than photo IDs.

Richard Little
Odessa, Mo.

Comments

stone

eh, so my numbers were a little off, but the overall theory was correct, however i didn't know that they had to get new pics taken every 12 years, although that still seems a little excessive

Kate

stone, the AZ drivers license doesn’t expire til you turn 65. We have a nephew who showed off his new license’s expiration date – at the time it was valid until something like 2049. But drivers are required to get a new photo taken every 12 years. Not that anyone in our family ever appears to age, mind you. :)

stone

only Arizona photo ID's can really allow for that much change in appearance. For those of you who don't know this, a DL in AZ is valid for over 30 years (I think the exact number is between 36 and 40), which is ludicrous none the less. If any state has a voter fraud from ID's because the picture is too old, it will be the state that boasts John McCain as its Senator.

kcstar_is_one_sided

It seems to work well enough the for the financial industry. Usually 2 forms of identification handle it. What is the big deal with ensuring that we eliminate voter fraud. How about going to the ink on the finger like Iraq.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright