This reader is sharing a letter to Governor Purdue regarding the current law requiring all Georgia voters to have proof of who they are in order to register to vote in Georgia and to produce acceptable personal identification at the polls prior to being given a ballot. Readers are encouraged to respond to this and any legal issues affecting your life.

Dear Governor Purdue:

This letter is in regards to the current law that prohibits law-abiding taxpayers from practicing their Constitutional Right to participate in elections or to vote on matters of legislation.

I am the legal guardian of my 97 year old aunt who has been a resident of Georgia for the past seven years. Until now, she has voted in every election since taking residence
in the state. Prior to moving to Georgia, she lived in Pennsylvania where she was issued a driver’s license several years ago (even though she did not drive) to facilitate her participation in that state’s prescription drug program. She therefore had picture I.D. in the event it was required to conduct business.

Since obtaining the franchise to vote, she has never missed or failed to participate in the process. Earlier this month, I accompanied her to the only state sanctioned office (within a 25 mile radius of my home) to obtain her Georgia Identification Card. After standing in line, I was told that she would need the following proof of identification in order to obtain the newly required card:

a. Proof of residence as evidenced by her name on a mailing showing her address— a bill or bank statement was acceptable.

b. A Certified copy of her marriage license showing her maiden name and her married name which she currently uses on all legal documents

c. A Certified Birth Certificate The absurdity of the request focuses
on the “Certified Marriage License.”

How many citizens can place their hands on a document issued 70 years ago? Although she does in fact have a copy of the marriage license, it is just that—a copy.

Again, although she was fortunate enough to have maintained a copy, “How many people can place their hands on a document issued 97 years ago?”

If the intent is to remove people from the voting rolls, this kind of inconvenience is surely the way to make it happen. Consider the undue stress and inconvenience this legislation is causing verses the purported desired result of controlling voter fraud.

Given the fact that recent vote counting irregularities in national elections have contributed to the rising tide of voter apathy, more and more qualified members of the populace have decided not to participate in the voting process. The pertinent question must again be asked, “Is it prudent to further restrict the rights of those least able to fight to maintain their rights?”

                                       Sincerely,
                                       RD. Edwards

                                       Concerned Citizen

 

top