I do not like the concept of photo id, but that’s basically from a libertarian perspective. I do not need to prove to anybody who I am, believing in freedom of self. As soon as somebody has the power to ask for my identity, my identify is compromised. At the same time, I do believe some element of self identification is required, if nothing else but for making sure assets, property, etc. etc. can be suitably linked to individuals. So for example, some form of identification will always be required.
That said, this was a great little argument.
In March, the Justice Department denied the Lone Star State the necessary clearance for this new law, arguing that it would disproportionately affect Hispanic voters. Texas officials appealed. To preserve the access of all citizens to the right to vote . . . the District Court should follow the Justice Department’s lead and strike down this highly suspect and unnecessary law.
What is interesting here is the role disproportionality plays in these leftist attempts at argument. Let's see if we can uncover the 'logic' of these arguments.
Suppose people of Italian extraction are disproportionately affected by anti-racketeering statutes. Would this be a good reason to oppose such laws? Obviously not. Why not? The reason is that the law targets the criminal behavior, not the ethnicity of the criminal. If it just so happens that people of Italian extraction are 'overrepresented' in the memberships of organized crime syndicates, then of course they will be 'disproportionately affected' by anti-racketeering laws. So what?