|Revise Valid Definition
|Ended on 8/4/2014
I oppose the proposed changes to the language and ask the Board of Elections to reject all of the changes.
The stated intent of the legislature in passing the photo ID law was to reduce the possibility of voter fraud by requiring voters to present an ID that links each voter's name with a recognizable photograph. The law provides a list of acceptable types of photo ID, some of which have expiration dates and some of which do not. Clearly, the legislators did not feel that an expiration date was relevant to the primary goal of linking a voter's name with his or her likeness in a photograph.
The new state voter photo ID cards have no expiration date. To state that documentation "shall be accepted up to 30 days after expiration" means that the very ID cards issues to help citizens comply with the new law are not valid for that purpose. This change also would mean that some IDs on the list of acceptable photo IDs in the law are not valid; for example, most corporate photo IDs do not have expiration dates.
In sum, there is no legal or common-sense ground to say that somes types of ID are valid because they include a recognizable photo and the voter's name, while others also require a date.