Tuesday, Democrats blocked a bill to require showing photo ID when voting. Now to me, this bill is a no-brainer. In today's society, you are supposed to be asked for a photo ID when putting a cup of coffee or a CD on your credit card. How more important is voting than a latte? We should be protecting our votes, as they are the basis of our society. Democrats, however, claim that such a requirement is nothing more than "a return to the Jim Crow - voter suppression tactics of the past," and that the bill "is actually designed to suppress turnout by black and Hispanic voters." If that's not the biggest load of bunk. The issue is simple. There have been countless stories of Democrats promoting voter fraud through having individuals vote in multiple districts, registering illegal immigrants, and even registering dead people, horses, and dogs. The blocking of this bill is simply an attempt to keep up such activity. Oh, and the other argument you hear is that more voting fraud occurs through proxy, so we should not have a bill focusing on ensuring the identity of those who vote in the booth. If that isn't stupid, I don't know what is. Yes, we obviously then need to tackle proxy voting fraud, but this doesn't then me that you vote down a bill to protect traditional voting when it is available and already passed through the House. The logic, or lack thereof, is shocking. I mean, who buys this junk? Oh, but I forgot that Democrats don't want to limit voting to the citizen voting only in his district.

They way I understand it, there are two things we're really protecting here. The first is protecting votes from illegal immigrants. Now, I'm not sure how often illegal immigrants try to vote, but when they so highly populate Texas, it is an area in need of safeguarding. If I vote as a citizen who pays taxes and contributes to the money pool which pays for the benefits of living within the state, be it educational, health, security, administrative, or even keeping up parks and whatever else our taxes pay for, but then have that vote canceled out by someone who is not a citizen, then my vote is nullified. Protecting against voting fraud is protecting citizen voter rights.

Secondly, we're protecting votes from fraudulent registrations for the sake of multiple voting. My vote should count as much as everyone else's. We have a democratic representative government, a republic which is entrusted to listen to the people. In this system, everyone, regardless of race, age (18+), or socio-economic status, should have the same weight carried in their vote. So again, if I cast a vote honestly but another votes in two districts or casts a ballot with a registration of someone deceased, then my vote is nullified. Protecting against voter fraud is protecting voter equality.

To be fair, however, let's look at what sort of identification will satisfy under the bill and see if Democrats are right in that it is merely "a bill to intimidate blacks and Hispanics," as I heard on quoted the news. If the required identification is impossible to achieve or the process in receiving such ID is simply not worth the casting of a ballot, then this is obviously not a good bill to pass. This list comes from Boyd L. Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. You may find the list from the Democratic Party website here.

"PS - In HB 218, here are the only acceptable forms of ID.

HB 218 would amend the list of acceptable forms of photo identification to include:

1. driver's license or personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that has not expired or expired within two years of the date of presentation;

2. U.S. military identification card containing the person's photograph;

3. valid employee identification card containing the person's photograph;

4. U.S. citizenship certificate that contains the person's photograph;

5. U.S. passport issued to the person;

6. Student identification card issued by a public or private institution of higher education located in Texas that contains the person's photograph (note: high school ID is not included);

7. license to carry a concealed handgun issued by DPS.

HB 218 would amend the list of acceptable forms of non-photo identification to include:

1. Copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter;

2. official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;

3. certified copy of a birth certificate or other acceptable document confirming birth;

4. U.S. citizenship papers;

5. original or certified copy of a person's marriage license or divorce decree;

6. Court records of a person's adoption or name or sex change;

7. identification card issued by a governmental entity for the purpose of obtaining public benefits, including veteran's benefits, Medicaid, or Medicare;

8. temporary driving permit issued to the person by DPS;

9. pilot's license issued to the person by an authorized federal agency;

10. library card, containing the person's name, issued by a public library located in this state;

11. hunting or fishing license issued to the person by the Parks and Wildlife Department."

As you will notice, the options are quite exhaustive, yet Mr. Richie says "here are the ONLY acceptable forms of ID." Laughable. Honestly, is this a problem for people who really exist and live legally in the district they're attempting to vote? Even the driver's license can be two years old. I can't buy a beer without a valid Photo ID. To be clear, I'm not some crazy Republican...not at all. I mean, I definitely am when it comes to taxes and economic issues, but I'm not at all when it comes to gun control, environmental responsibility, and such. So, don't think I'm just railing on Democrats because they're Democrats. No. I'm railing on them because they're being retardedly stupid.

As a side note, I would like to say that it's bull how Democrats have been terming themselves as "progressive" as opposed to "conservative" for Republicans. First off, I think it's unfair to term Republicans as "conservative" and "Democrats" as liberal anyway. Really, it's "Big Government Control" versus "Small Government Control." That's the issue. Secondly, while good marketing, it's misleading to term yourself as the "progressive" party, which automatically insinuates that your opposition is the "caveman" party. Again, it's good marketing, but it's crap.