The Constitution directs, “the manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.” Therefore it is quite legal for the State of California to not require identification to vote. Calls for an identification requirement are often dismissed as a civil rights violation. I see this as a civil rights issue as well, not the identification requirement, but the lack thereof. Before that is addressed, it must be established that it is logical to conclude that voter identification reduces voter fraud. It is also logical to conclude that every American citizen would desire less voter fraud in our elections. The debate is not whether it is legal or effective, but is it a civil rights violation?

 Our all-volunteer military swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They freely abdicate many of their own civil rights to fight to protect the rights of others. They cannot speak freely nor enjoy a freedom of the press. They do have the right to vote, however, regardless of circumstance. Even in combat zones, men and women serving are afforded the opportunity to vote absentee. Every fraudulent vote erases one of their votes. The civil rights of our military members are being violated.

 Fortunately, the U S Constitution specifies, “the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations [manner of holding elections].” In the face of a civil rights violation, it is the duty of the Congress to protect the integrity of the vote to ensure our military votes are not erased. The Nineteenth and Twenty Sixth Amendments specifically direct the Congress to enforce voting rights by legislation. Currently, our Congress has shown no intention of protecting the integrity of federal elections, in particular ensuring that our service members’ votes are given their full weight. Ironically, our Congress has sent these troops into two different combat zones to secure the integrity of foreign elections. This is unacceptable, unethical conduct from our Congress.

 The opposition to an identification requirement contends that there are some American citizens who do not possess identification and as such would be excluded from voting. To protect these individuals, identification services must be included in this legislation at government expense. The recently upheld Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates government health records as an expense reducing measure. Certainly, these citizens will require identification to receive healthcare services and computerized records as well. Identification can serve two purposes. The benefits justify the costs.

 Our military members are sent abroad to fight and die to protect the integrity of elections in Iraq and Afghanistan while their votes are being erased here. Congress has a Constitutional authority to act and an ethical crisis if it doesn’t.

 As your Congressman, I will not be swayed by propaganda or name calling from civil rights violators. I will do what is right to protect the civil rights of all Americans. That is a federal mandate for voter identification.