In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld an Indiana law, which requires--gasp--voters to show identification before voting.  The newly 'oppressed,' losing team queued up their pre-written responses:  "Voter suppression!" "Disenfranchisement!!" "Intimidation!"  A dissenting Justice Souter even referenced a modern-day poll tax.  The other side replied:  "What's the big deal?"

Well, what is the big deal?  Have Indiana and the Supremes actually brought about the end of the Republic?  Or, is it possible that a state might have an interest in making sure elections are fair in order to preserve the Republic?

To increase fairness in its elections, Indiana now makes voters prove they are who they say they are.  99% of Indiana's voting-aged citizens already have I.Ds.  For the rest, the law allows a provisional vote.

The 'concern' and fustian for, at most, a fraction of 1% of registered voters having to vote provisionally speaks to where we are politically--and rhetorically--as a nation.  For an example of the over-the-top response, the Wall Street Journal quoted the NAACP's Hilary Shelton as saying the decision was "the Supreme Court...[deciding] to disenfranchise voters across Indiana."  In fact, the ruling was about protecting the legitimacy of elections versus undue burdens on voters.

But in a country so closely divided politically, the case is viewed by some as "pro disenfranchisement." The elevated rhetoric serves a political purpose:  that fraction of 1% of voters might just turn an election.  As we learned in 2000, a few hundred votes here and a few hundred there, and pretty soon we're talking about the presidency.  

What we are also talking about is the modern liberal's condescending view of "the poor."  Namely, they are incapable of taking care of themselves.  It is, according to the liberal nannies, not possible for a 'simple' poor person to get an I.D. and take it to the poll.  To demand as much unduly burdens their ability to vote.  

But choosing the leader of the free world is a burden too.  How 'easy' ought it to be, if ease invites fraud?  If "the poor" cannot be "disenfranchised" by showing I.D., isn't it possible that you might be disenfranchised by a scammer voting without an I.D.?  For every fraudulent voter a real voter has been "disenfranchised."  And that is the heart of this case.  Republicans in Indiana believe it is the state's duty to protect legitimate votes.  They believe election fraud exists, and requiring I.Ds. helps reduce it.  Their liberal opponents see this as keeping some traditional Democratic voters from voting.  The fact that some such traditional voters might not be traditionally legal voters does not diminish their fervor--the sinister-minded might wonder if it actually increases their fervor.

The high stakes allowed the partisan lines to hold true in Indiana.  They also hold true in California.  Assemblywoman Mimi Walters has twice authored anti-voter-fraud legislation in Sacramento.  Her 2005 bill would have required, like Indiana, photo I.D.  Her more recent bill would've required proof of citizenship to register.  If your immediate response to those ideas is not "racism!" then you probably think "what the...those aren't laws already?"  Sadly, they are not.  In California, poll workers cannot ask you for a photo I.D.--even if they know you aren't who you say you are.  Should the most solemn act in a democratic republic--voting--be limited to those that can prove they are citizens of that republic?  Well, it depends on who you ask in Sacramento.

There, both bills died in committee on party-line votes.  Party-line conformity broke down, however, in Washington, D.C.  Generally, the court is seen as center-right by a 5 to 4 margin.  Justice Stevens is one of the "liberal four."  Yet he authored the Crawford decision.  His 'unliberal' conclusion was that the state's interest in protecting against fraud is legitimate:  "The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'"  To translate the legalese, Justice Stevens answered our earlier question with a simple "I.Ds. are no big deal."