My commentary is in response to Jessica Sloan’s blog post titled "Clinton's Email Controversy Continues!" My colleague describes the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton concerning her emails being subpoenaed. Taking her readers through the timeline of events, she explains why Clinton is under suspicion right now. Also, she points out the possible repercussions of the timing of this event considering the upcoming presidential elections in which Clinton intends to run.

     Overall, the piece is well written and concise. Perhaps my only criticism is that my colleague didn't really provide readers with a definite conclusion. What should we take away from this and why should we care? On the other hand, she lays out the situation in a clear and capable way. Claiming, “there’s no evidence to support any wrongdoing regarding emails,” without providing any evidence for the statement seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. However, mentioning that President Obama has asked for government to use separate email accounts for personal and work correspondence adds credibility to my colleague’s cause.

     In conclusion, Miss Sloan wrote a reasonable and informative criticism. Personally, I appreciate her nonjudgmental tone. But at the same time, I hoped for a more substantial opinion on the subject. Sifting through a news issue like this is no simple task so I appreciate my colleague’s efforts. Since reading this blog post, I have become increasingly engaged by this story, which I feel should be the goal of anybody commenting on political news. 

     Of all the things we, as citizens of the United States, are allowed to participate in voting is one of the most important. Honestly, nobody really wants to vote. However, as an optimist, I still cling to the idea that every vote matters despite what people say. If that’s the case, then isn’t it imperative that the government take every precaution to prevent voter fraud? One of the most prevalent, and disputed, methods of doing this is requiring photo ID. 

     Currently 31 states request or require some form of voter ID, 18 of which request or require photo IDs. Only 7 of those states require photo ID at polling places, although North Carolina and Wisconsin have recently passed similar laws which have yet to take effect. In recent polls, 70-75% of voters supported required voter ID. Just throughout daily life we run across the need for valid ID, such as when applying for a job, when boarding a plane, when buying cigarettes or alcohol, when checking out media from the library, or when driving. Why is it so difficult to present these same IDs to staff when voting? 

    Critics argue that requiring photo ID discriminates against minorities. One of many examples of this argument is an article by James B. Kelleher of Reuters. He explains that, “59 percent of Hispanic women and 55 percent of African-American men in the Milwaukee area lacked a valid state-issued photo ID.” Compared to other democracies, the U.S. has a very low voter turnout. One possible explanation for this is because it’s the citizen’s job to register whereas in other countries the government takes care of it. “In general, the governments know the names, ages and addresses of most of its citizens and – except in the United States – provide the appropriate polling place with a list of those qualified to vote,” explains Minn Post author Eric Black. 

     The system is far from perfect. According to a 2006 survey, around 11% of eligible U.S. citizens don’t actually have access to current or valid government-issued photo ID. Also, low income citizens were found to be  twice as unlikely to have proof of citizenship. Undeniably, these statistics pose a problem to required voter ID. I propose that the government supply free ID to citizens before elections. In 2008, Jimmy Carter and James Baker III of the Carter Center proposed that our government help transition in photo ID voting laws by sending mobile units to distribute IDs in districts where voters likely don't have access to them. This seems like a reasonable solution, if somewhat costly. 

     In the end, we all want accurate election results. Requiring voters to show photo ID at polls is a necessary measure. Of course no idea is flawless. But perhaps this one just might ensure truthful results. Maybe I’m wrong, but if every vote does count, then how can we accept anything less than the best in security?