Yes, the Pa. Voter ID ad is misleading

So, here’s the Pennsylvania Department of State’s latest advertisement regarding Voter ID:

And here’s my transcript of it:

If you care about this election … (repeated 2x)
If you have an opinion …
If you want a voice ... (repeated 2x)
If you want to make a difference ...
Then show it!
Show it! (repeated 2x)

Voiceover: When voting this election day, you will be asked, but not required to show a photo ID. To learn more about how to get a free photo ID from PennDOT driver license centers, even if you were unable to get one in the past, call 1-877 VOTES PA or visit votesPA.com.

The ad has come in for criticism, but Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman insists it is neither false nor misleading:

"We're accurately reflecting what the law is, and the judge's ruling indicated the education should continue," he said.

Hm. The first part of the ad is structured as a conditional; that is, an “if-then” statement. Back when I took elementary logic in college, we learned the following rule for evaluating if-then's:

p	q	If p then q
True	True	True
True	False	False
False	True	True
False	False	True

In this case, for “p” we have “you care about this election … you have an opinion … you want a voice.” All true? In my case, absolutely. And presumably true of everyone who votes. (That's why they go to the trouble.) So “p” is true.

How about "q"? Well, "Show it!" must mean either "You must show it!" or "You should show it!" No other interpretation  makes sense, given the grammar and the way the actors read the line.

If "q" means, "You must show it!" then it's clearly false – the subsequent voice-over tells us so. So, "p" is true, "q" is false, and the conditional as a whole is false. 

How about if "q" just means "You should show it!"? Then the question immediately becomes, "Why?" As we just said, showing ID is completely irrelevant to voting, under current law. It changes nothing; it's pointless, strictly speaking. Why not hop three times on one foot or recite a few lines from Hamlet? 

The Commonwealth's position appears to be that practicing will help voters when Voter ID takes effect. I can see the point of preparing for that day (i.e., by getting a valid ID). But why practice, why rehearse? Shouldn't citizens in a democracy seek to know their rights and exercise them instead of engaging in kabuki compliance with a law that remains under injunction? 

Voter ID is a transparently partisan law that disproportionately burdens the poor and elderly to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The fact that the burden seems trivial to most middle-class voters is part and parcel of why proponents like it. Complying with Voter ID before you have to is like paying a poll tax you don’t have to or taking a literacy test you don’t have to. Getting comfortable with Voter ID is akin to getting comfortable with poll taxes and literacy tests, and thinking they're normal and reasonable. People clearly shouldn't do that. 

So, as before, "q" is false, making the conditional false as a whole.  

Now, this analysis is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But this ad really does embody an appalling non-sequitur, exhorting people in the strongest moral terms to show ID before quietly muttering that they needn't. The ad's critics are perfectly correct: Pennsylvania is spending $1 million to mislead its citizens.