Photo IDs

No reason to keep voters from having to show them

We can find no good reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires voters to produce a photo identification card before casting their ballots.

The court has been hearing arguments in the matter, and indications are that it is divided along the same lines that frequently divide conservatives and liberals.

Seven states require voters to present a photo ID, and 18 other states require identification of some kind. Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are not in either group.

Chief among the arguments against photo-voter IDs that they impose an unfair burden, especially upon poor people who might have to travel or pay fees to obtain the copies of birth certificates needed to obtain the IDs.

Critics compare the voter ID laws to the Jim Crow-era poll taxes that were in effect for nearly two decades in many southern states. These were devastating upon black voters, more than half of whom became disenfranchised in Georgia and South Carolina alone.

Modern-day voter IDs are a different story, particularly at a time when many elections are subject to charges of fraud and other impropriety. These problems can be lessened, if not avoided entirely, by making sure that votes are cast only by those who are registered.

The question of whether voter IDs pose an unfair burden upon some citizens can be addressed by requiring states to take whatever steps are needed to make them available to people who may have difficulty doing what is necessary to obtain them.

Photo IDs of all types are now a fact of life. They are needed to drive cars, board airliners, enter some job sites and - for those who appear youthful - buy alcohol or tobacco. They prevent more problems than they cause.