When the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld Indiana's voter identification law, civil libertarians across the country sounded an alarm.
Forcing voters to show a photo ID is tantamount to a poll tax, they said. Thousands of voters will be disenfranchised, they said.
The concerns raised might not be as dire as those folks have indicated.
About half of states require voters to present some sort of identification at the polls. It just doesn't offend our sensibilities to suggest that citizens of this country should have to show identification to vote. We pull out identification to enter a federal building or to buy a six-pack of beer. Everybody boarding a commercial plane in the past several years has had to present a photo ID. Is that really an unbearable or unreasonable burden?
The Student PIRG New Voters Project conducted surveys about the voter ID requirement among students in Indiana. They told such harrowing tales as having to walk all the way back to the residence halls to get their IDs before being allowed to vote. For some, "travel plans" didn't allow them enough time to return with an ID.
In another case, some elderly residents of a convent were without the requisite IDs. (They are past holding driver's licenses.) They will have them by the general election.
Somehow, that's not the sort of disenfranchisement that stirs us to outrage. In fact, Indiana law makes some allowance for the person who forgets an ID. A voter without ID can cast a provisional ballot and return to the county clerk with a photo ID within 10 days.
If getting a photo ID truly causes a hardship, there should be a way around it. Requiring the identification to bear a photo might cause a hardship, in some cases. In some states, showing identification can be as simple as providing a voter registration card, for example, or a utility bill. That seems reasonable, particularly when there is scant evidence that voter fraud is a problem.
The Supreme Court's ruling in support of Indiana's law is just another reality of post-9/11 America. More and more often, identification will be required. However, if that is the direction state governments are heading, those states requiring photo ID at the polls must make obtaining one a reasonable process for voters. Indiana has been cited as an example, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In return, Indiana officials must make getting a photo ID a convenient and low-cost proposition for prospective voters who don't have a license or passport.
Editorials reflect the consensus of the Telegraph Herald Editorial Board: Jim Normandin (publisher), Brian Cooper, Ken Brown, Monty Gilles and Amy Gilligan.
