Picture ID before the Supreme Court today

The case concerning Indiana's photo ID law is before the Court today. John Fund details the arguments of each side. Although opponents claim that such a requirement unfairly hurts poor, minority, and elderly voters who might not have such IDs, there is no evidence at all to back up their claims. Fund demonstrates how fears of voter fraud are quite realistic.

But Indiana officials make the obvious point that, without a photo ID requirement, in-person fraud is "nearly impossible to detect or investigate." A grand jury report prepared by then-Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman in the 1980s revealed how difficult it is to catch perpetrators. It detailed a massive, 14-year conspiracy in which crews of individuals were recruited to go to polling places and vote in the names of fraudulently registered voters, dead voters, and voters who had moved. "The ease and boldness with which these fraudulent schemes were carried out shows the vulnerability of our entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraudulent misrepresentation," the report concluded. No indictments were issued thanks to the statute of limitations, and because of grants of immunity in return for testimony.

Even modest in-person voter fraud creates trouble in close races. In Washington state's disputed 2004 governor's race, which was won by 129 votes, the election superintendent in Seattle testified in state court that ineligible felons had voted and votes had been cast in the name of the dead. In Milwaukee, Wis., investigators found that, in the state's close 2004 presidential election, more than 200 felons voted illegally and more than 100 people voted twice. In Florida, where the entire 2000 presidential election was decided by 547 votes, almost 65,000 dead people are still listed on the voter rolls--an engraved invitation to fraud. A New York Daily News investigation in 2006 found that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City had voted twice in at least one recent election.

He points out that there are real questions about absentee ballots and little effort to try and block fraud with those ballots. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the Supreme Court lets states decide for themselves if they needs a photo ID law. As long as there is a provision for free photo IDs for those who need them, why shouldn't there be the same provisions for cashing a check, boarding a plane, and casting a vote. Here in North Carolina, we can just waltz in and give our name and verify our address and vote away. I always ponder how easy it would be for me to scan the voter logs upside down as the person checks my address and see how many other people on the page have not yet voted and then report that information to someone with access to those names and who could then send in someone else to vote in those names. The Court has talked about how important it is to keep people's faith in our election process. There is too much suspicion out there - just witness the rumors flying around today after Clinton's victory. Let's let the states pass the laws that they feel are necessary to maintain faith in their elections.