It’s a subcordanating conjunction
Many people don't have a photo identification. Requiring people to show a photo identification to vote would keep those without this type of identification from voting. Those who often don't have identification include elderly individuals who no longer drive and citizens living in high poverty areas where transportation is limited. They would be denied the chance to vote. Sociologist Mark Abernathy writes, "requiring photo identification in order to vote essentially eliminates a whole population of American voters. These voters are part of society, but they are denied a basic right guaranteed to all Americans over the age of eighteen. Elections are then determined by only a smallportion of the population, not the entire population" (page 820 of the article "Photo Identification Disenfranchisement"). Some people think this is not true. Ria Olberson, an economist at Alabaster University, states, "Few Americans are without drivers' licenses. Even if the license is expired or revoked, it still counts as photo identification. To claim that requiring identification disenfranchises a segment of the American population is simply inaccurate" (page 101). Olberson is just wrong! A lot of people don't have licenses because they either don't need them or they don't want them. Consider people living in major cities. They have no reason to get driver's licenses: public transportation. This extremely large group of people would be forced to obtain driver's licenses to participate in a process that they are guaranteed as citizens of the United States
