High court upholds election integrity

Recognizing that the public's confidence in its representative governments is only as strong as the integrity of the country's elections, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday firmly upheld Indiana's voter photo-identification law and the modest protections it employs against ballot fraud.

In a 6-3 split that defied the highly partisan nature of the case, Justice John Paul Stevens, a rock-solid liberal, joined perpetual waffler Anthony Kennedy and the court's four conservatives in dismissing the nonsensical argument that requiring voters to provide photo identification at the polls creates unconstitutional obstacles for minorities, the elderly and the poor on Election Day.

Making the ruling even more torturous for Democrats, who have vigorously fought such laws across the country, Justice Stevens wrote the court's lead opinion, stating unequivocally that states have a "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process" and that without reasonable identification standards, the risk of voter fraud is real and "could affect the outcome of a close election."

It was the closest of elections -- the 2000 presidential race -- that prompted states to shore up their election laws with safeguards against fraud. About half of the states enacted tougher identification standards, with more than a half-dozen requiring voters to provide photo identification at their polling sites.

When Americans are already required to carry photo ID to drive a car, board an airplane, buy controlled substances, make some credit card purchases and collect government aid, it's hard to claim that bringing one to the ballot box infringes on citizens' rights -- especially when balanced against the public's expectation of fair, just elections.

In Indiana, a driver's license enables any registered voter to cast a ballot. Those who lack a driver's license can obtain state photo identification at no charge through Indiana's Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Under the statute, residents must present at least one government-issued "primary" document, such as a birth certificate, passport, certificate of naturalization or military identification, to obtain that free voter ID.

However, voters who show up at the polls without a photo ID can cast a provisional ballot, then take up to 10 days to visit an appropriate government office and produce a photo ID for verification. If they still can't produce a photo ID, they can sign a statement that declares they're too poor to afford the purchase of a primary identification document.

Layers of contingencies seem silly, but are necessary to rebut legal challenges. In Georgia and Missouri, photo identification laws were thrown out by courts because Democrats successfully argued that the underlying costs of obtaining a photo ID -- from passport charges and birth certificate copy fees to the gasoline expenses or bus fares incurred traveling to issuing government offices -- constituted unconstitutional poll taxes.

But following this logic, the act of voting presents undue hardships to the electorate, who must go through the hassle of obtaining an absentee ballot or take the time to travel to a polling site. And the process of registering to vote, which requires a photo ID in some states (Nevada is not among them), is even more burdensome.

The right to vote, like every other precious right in this country, is worth protecting. And the right to vote loses its value when participating in an election becomes an exercise in convenience and anonymity, with no conditions or demands on the citizenry. Your voting rights are violated when, after casting a lone ballot, your neighbor casts dissenting ballots as himself and four dead citizens at polling stations around town.

Justice David Souter's poorly reasoned dissent, which acknowledged that voter fraud is easier without identification requirements but is "relatively ineffectual" at affecting election outcomes, underscores the lack of valid arguments against photo identification standards.

The court got this one right. Hopefully, its ruling will encourage other states -- including Nevada -- to make similar stands in favor of equitable elections.