One would think after all the hullabaloo surrounding the Florida recount debacle of 2000, the Democratic Party would welcome efforts to ensure the veracity of the vote. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Prominent Democrats uniformly denounced the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling this past week upholding Indiana's law requiring voters who go to the polls to show valid photo identification. The Indiana Democratic Party not only did not support the law, but sued the state in federal court seeking to block the implementation, basing their argument on equal protection grounds. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the law places 'an unnecessary burden on the elderly and low-income voters, not to mention other voters of disparate racial and ethnic backgrounds.' Barack Obama said, 'It discourages folks from voting,' especially seniors and the poor. Senator Chuck Schumer engaged in more hyperbole by describing the ruling as a 'body blow to what America stands for—equal access to the polls.'

The Indiana Voter ID Law hardly seems like a 'body blow' to all that good and right concerning democracy in America.--six other states require a photo ID, 18 others require an ID, with or without a photo. The Indiana law simply calls for anyone who shows up at the polls to vote to have a valid photo ID, period. A driver's license fits the bill or other government issued ID, and for those who do not have one, the state will provide a photo ID card for free. Absentee ballot voting by mail is still available as well for any who cannot travel to the polls. The Help Americans Vote Act of 2002 does require people registering for the first time by mail, to include a copy of valid photo identification. The intent of these laws is to curb voter fraud: whether it is those who are not citizens voting or felons (who forfeit one of the privileges of being a citizen) or someone who is eligible to vote doing so multiple times at different polling places. The Supreme Court noted in its opinion that the committee responsible for drafting the Indiana law found that certain counties in their state actually had voting registration totals exceeding the total population of voting age in that county. Call it the Chicago Mayor Daly problem (dead people voting for John Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential election).

This sort of fraud can swing elections. In no instance was that clearer than in Bush v. Gore in 2000, when the winner was decided by a margin of 537 votes in Florida. John Fund, editor for the Wall Street Journal and writer of the book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy (2004) noted in that much contested election, 5600 felons voted and 71% of them were registered as Democrats. He also pointed out that 8 of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote in Florida in 2000 (a fact well-covered by the national news media outlets as well). So both felons and non-citizens contributed to the final tallies in the Florida election. In this tainted pool of voters, George Bush came out the victor, as later verified by a recount of all the ballots by an independent pool of reporters. The result could have just as easily been in Al Gore's favor, with Republicans being just as upset as the Democrats were with election irregularities. I remember well attending the 2001 Inauguration of President Bush and hearing a group of protestors yelling through a bullhorn across the way 'Go tell it on the mountain, over the hill and everywhere, go tell it on the mountain how George Bush stole my vote.' Hopefully the Republicans could have come up with a better ditty, if the shoe had been on the other foot.

Both Democrats and Republicans have an interest in the accuracy of the vote in order to maintain the public's confidence in the results. In every election, especially after the outcome in 2000, the Democratic Party's cry is always voter suppression (discouraging those who are eligible from heading to the polls), while the Republicans' concern is voter fraud. When weighed in the balance, the validity of the vote must win. As the Supreme Court notes in its Indiana Voter ID opinion, as long as the law in question is applied equally without the intent to exclude certain groups from voting and isn't overly burdensome, the state's interest in ensuring election's accuracy is the greatest concern. For a state to allow people to vote who are not eligible actually disenfranchises those whose votes are supposed to be counted: every fraudulent vote cast negates a valid one. The Court quotes the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform (2005) regarding the efficacy of requiring a photo ID at the poll place. 'There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally as important.'

The Supreme Court's decision is correct: Indiana and every state must do all they can to ensure the accuracy of the vote, as evidenced by the photo finish (pun intended) in the Hoosier state Democratic Primary this week. Having faith in the accuracy of election results is the lifeblood of a democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randall DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths about how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence throughout the history of the United States.