Voter ID rules make sense
POSTED: October 22, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court justices have agreed to consider a case involving whether voter identification laws are unconstitutional. The very fact that justices are willing to hear the case is troubling.
An Indiana law that requires voters to present photo identification documents before casting ballots has been challenged. That state’s Democratic Party and civil rights groups claim the law discriminates against poor and minority voters.
Indiana officials’ response is that reasonable identification rules are needed to guard against election fraud.
Many states have voter identification requirements, for the same reason that Indiana enacted its rules. Such laws are attempts to balance a desire for open access to the polling places with safeguards against fraud.
We hope high court justices, in agreeing to hear the case, are merely signaling a desire to examine the specifics of the Indiana law — not to rule on the constitutionality of voter ID rules in general.
Voting indeed is a right in the United States, but like most others, it carries with it responsibilities. One of those is to help elections officials guard against fraud. In that light, the high court should affirm the place of voter ID rules in the elections process.
Member Comments
View Comments: | 1-1 | Post a comment
|
soupist
|
|
|---|---|
|
10-22-07 2:44 PM
|
From EPIC:Neither Indiana nor the courts have been able to identify one case in which a photo ID requirement would have prevented voter fraud. The few cases of voter fraud that have been documented all have occurred with absentee ballots. Indiana’s new law would not prevent such voter fraud, because it includes an exemption from the photo identification requirement for absentee voters. The Indiana law raises First and Fourteenth Amendment questions and would likely disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters.
|