Living Outside The Lines: Of Voter Identification and Drug Testing

By, Becky J Miller

Lest anyone get his or her knickers in a knot while reading this column, “Living Outside the Lines” is intended to be about life from my perspective.  It is quite likely that my perspective is different than yours, and that’s okay.  Without differences of opinion, our lives would be pretty boring.  The beauty of humanity is that we may not always agree, but we can always choose to disagree peacefully, without resorting to anger and violence.

It’s an election year, and with an election year comes a plethora of hot topic issues; my opinion on the issues should not be confused with support for any particular candidate.  Let’s start with the voter identification laws.  While I agree that all eligible voters should be guaranteed the right to visit the polls without fear of resistance, I must place emphasis on the rights of, “eligible voters.” 

The Voting Rights Act passed in August 1965, “banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration…and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections.”  Prior to passage of the Voting Rights Act, many African Americans, particularly in the South faced discriminatory practices at the polls.  The act’s intent was to protect the voting rights of citizens.

In the current culture, the clash seems to be over proof of citizenship and the stringent identification requirements, which could be considered prejudicial against immigrants.  And here is where I would raise the voice of reason, how is requiring anyone to show some form of identification prejudicial?

Please.  Let’s get real here.  How does one manage to wander through life without proper identification?  We cannot legally do much of anything without some form of identification; drive a car, open a bank account, rent or purchase a home, buy tobacco or alcohol, buy or register a car, secure employment, pick up prescriptions, buy Sudafed, super glue or paint.  Come on.  This is not rocket science, and it’s not discriminatory. 

When my oldest son, a citizen by birth with a family lineage of American-born parents and grandparents, wanted to open a bank account at 15, despite the fact that he had a public school ID, social security card and a U.S. issued birth certificate, we were legally required to apply for a state identification card.  Was it inconvenient and somewhat ridiculous? Yes.  Was I highly annoyed? Yes.  Did it cost me a few extra dollars? Yes.  Was it a necessary evil that we were compelled to abide by? Yes.  Was it discriminatory to him as a U.S. citizen?  Perhaps.

Here is the point, how do voter identification laws differ from any laws requiring proper or specific forms of identification?  And if you are who you claim to be, then why all the fuss over providing irrefutable evidence to support said claim? 

Another issue dividing the masses is whether or not public assistance recipients should be subjected to regular drug testing.  Why shouldn’t they?  I work in a private industry and as a source of my employment, I am subject to random drug testing.  Do I like it?  Not particularly.  Do I have something to hide? No.  But, I do have a choice here.  I can abide by the rules, and stay employed, or I can seek employment elsewhere. 

No one is forced into accepting public assistance.  Since my private paycheck comes with strings attached, doesn’t fairness dictate that individuals receiving their paycheck directly from the government also be subject to the same requirements?  If they are unhappy with those rules, they are also free to seek income from other sources. 

Private industry is not the only arena where drug testing is mandatory.  Government employees i.e., military members, police officers, firefighters, and civilian employees all have to take random drug tests so I fail to see the issue here.   Why shouldn’t individuals on welfare be subject to the same types of restrictions as other members of the populace?  How can that be considered inequitable or discriminatory?

In my mind these issues all boil down to common sense and logic; those desiring the privileges should abide by the rules, rules that are equitable across the board.  If not, well, that is a choice freely made.   

Until Next Time,

Becky J Miller

“Warrior Princess”