Although the majority of American citizens do hold the proper identification to be able to vote under Voter ID laws, it has been determined that certain groups, including the elderly, young people, low-income, minorities, and those living in rural areas will be disproportionately affected by these laws. In the discussion about whether these laws should be allowed, there have been comparisons made between Voter ID laws and the poll taxes that were used to stop minorities from voting back in the Jim Crow era. In a speech regarding a new Voter ID law passed in Texas, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes." Some would say that this analogy is a bit overboard, but really, should one of the most sacred rights belonging to an American citizen be taken lightly? The same groups who fought so hard for suffrage are the same ones who these types of laws would affect the most. Voter ID laws definitely do more harm than good, and for this reason, they are a threat to our democracy.
Those in support of voter ID laws tend to argue three main points. The first is the claim that voter ID laws are nondiscriminatory, because they are not singling out specific groups, but apply uniformly to all citizens. In a lawsuit brought against the state of Pennsylvania on the behalf of possibly disenfranchised voters, Judge Robert Simpson of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of a voter ID law that could stop thousands of Pennsylvania residents from voting. His reasoning behind this: ""The photo ID requirement is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonsevere burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life. The Commonwealth's asserted interest in protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest sufficiently weighty to justify the burden.