We should encourage more voting
Re: Marty Ryzak’s June 14 letter, “Need Voter ID in California”:
Mr. Ryzak is concerned about the length of time it takes for California to count the votes. It is true that California does have a lengthy vote counting period compared to other states, but does this really open the door to fraud as suggested? Or is it a reflection of the effort put in to ensure that the only ballots counted are those cast by eligible voters?
I am gratified to live in a state that is a leader in voter accessibility granting eligible voters more voting options. Mr. Ryzak asks someone to answer what is wrong with requiring voter ID and states that an ID is required for about everything in your daily life. I would say that last statement is not quite true as I am rarely asked for my ID.
However, I am happy to answer the question as to what is wrong with requiring voter ID. While presenting ID at the polls may seem like a minor request to many of us, in fact many Californians do not have the necessary government-issued ID. In California, per a study done by the nonprofit Vote Riders in conjunction with the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, 35% of 18–24-year-olds, 19% of Asian American/Pacific Islanders, 18% of Blacks and 14 % of Hispanics, as well as 22% of people with disabilities were found to not have government-issued IDs.
California already has processes in place to ensure that only eligible citizens can vote. Non-citizen voting is extremely rare. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, which is a crime with criminal penalties. Our issue isn’t voter fraud; it is voter participation. We should encourage more voting among eligible voters, not put more barriers in place.
Kathy Morgan, Ventura
Controversial moment of silence
Re: USA TODAY’s June 4 story, “MN Republicans face backlash for honoring Chauvin at convention”:
So the Minnesota Republican Party is getting grief over their moment of silence for convicted killer and ex-cop Derek Chauvin during their convention. OK, maybe they deserve some grief, but in my opinion this time it’s for the wrong reasons. Some of the grief-givers say the gesture was “disrespectful” to cops who don’t kill their victims, while Chauvin’s prosecutor claims that it “dishonors George Floyd, wounds his family all over again, and disrespects the public record of Chauvin’s conviction.” However, like most things prosecutors say, all this is both false and ridiculous.
Let’s get a few things straight. First, George Floyd’s family already knows there are people who think Chauvin was “just doing his job” and shouldn’t be in jail now for killing their relative, just like we all know there are people who continue to celebrate Hitler and Harvey Weinstein. But Chauvin is in jail, and I’m sure the Floyd family realizes that people’s opinions don’t change reality. Personally, I’m on Floyd’s side, so if I honor him do I also “wound” people who like Chauvin? No, that’s not how it works, and we don’t have a right to just shut down whoever we disagree with.
Second, cops who don’t murder members of the public aren’t “disrespected” by a moment of silence for one who did. They just disrespect themselves by remaining in a job where their coworkers frequently kill their neighbors.
And finally, to all prosecutors and people who think like them: No one can “disrespect a public record of conviction.” Sorry, but you’re not that important, and that’s not a thing. It’s nonsense. Stop it.
Dymitr Harashevsky, Ventura
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Don’t suppress voting, Chauvin moment of silence | Letters
Reporting by Ventura County Star / Ventura County Star
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Ventura County Star | USA TODAY Network
