Letters: Penalizing nonvoters would amount to a tax on the poor

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Penalizing nonvoters would be tax on poor

Re: “Why the U.S. should make voting compulsory” (Page A11, Aug. 2).

The authors clearly didn’t consult a tax professional for this article.

Penalizing nonvoters with the loss of their standard deduction will absolutely be a tax on the poor. It’s true that today, a single person earning $16,100 ($32,200 for a married couple) pays no tax. But eliminate the standard deduction for failing to vote, and that person owes $1,610, a 10% penalty. And a middle-class taxpayer pays even more.

Maybe it will get out the vote: to defeat anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

Karen Brosi
Mountain View

Liccardo’s office gives hope in climate fight

Re: “UN, scientists warn that El Niño will add to fires” (Page A3, Aug. 1).

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that due to a strengthening El Niño, “We are in uncharted territory,” and “The climate crisis is in overdrive.”

We are already experiencing the effects of El Niño in California, with extreme heat and an increasing number of wildfires.

Tuesday, July 28, I was one of 850 Citizens’ Climate Lobby volunteers who met face-to-face with members of Congress (or their staffers) in over 400 congressional offices on Capitol Hill to let them know that we support clean energy solutions.

In our meeting with Rep. Sam Liccardo’s legislative aide, we discussed the need for a bipartisan permitting reform package that will reduce emissions, create jobs and improve energy security and reliability by helping to meet rising power demand. Getting transmission lines up and running faster is key.

Liccardo is passionate about working across the aisle on climate change, and I left the meeting feeling hopeful.

Paula Danz
Los Altos

Go after fraudsters if voter fraud is a problem

Re: “Voter ID could soon be required” (Page A1, Aug. 3).

I first voted on Nov. 3, 1964. I felt my voice had been heard.

Now, there are those who wish to place obstacles in my path. If my dog has fleas, please don’t kill my dog; kill the fleas. Don’t infringe on my right to vote; find and prosecute those committing the crime.

My government is supposed to protect my rights. I’m the victim; protect me.

Morris Chassen
San Jose

Make voter ID arguments on merit

Re: “Voter ID could soon be required” (Page A1, Aug. 3).

Some claim requiring a government-issued photo ID is an unreasonable burden. Yet Californians routinely present photo ID without controversy. We need it to drive, board commercial flights, buy alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis, rent a car, check into hotels, open bank accounts, start a new job, pick up certain prescriptions, notarize documents, purchase firearms and enter many bars, casinos and secure government facilities. Many local governments also require photo ID to use landfills, dispose of household hazardous waste, retrieve impounded vehicles or obtain resident discounts for parks and recreation.

If photo ID is accepted as a reasonable safeguard for so many everyday activities, it deserves the same consideration wherever identity verification protects the integrity of an important public process. We should debate voter ID on its merits — not on the mistaken premise that showing a photo ID is somehow foreign to everyday life.

Ray Girouard
Atherton