The rancor that Democrats everywhere exhibit when the topic of voter identification arises is enough to make one’s head explode. Bill Hobbs notes the potential for mass voter fraud in the wake of the theft of complete voter records from the Davidson County Election Commission. Such is a legitimate concern. Even without that example of the most unbelievable gross negligence by the Commission, the case for a voter identification card is a sound one.

The Indiana law requiring voter identification cards is currently pending in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. A similar law in Georgia, which was struck down at the district level but upheld by the Eleventh Circuit, is not before the court, but will certainly be affected by the high court’s ruling.

The argument advanced by some here in Tennessee is that such a vote will “depress turnout”. And they’re right - it will depress turnout of those who shouldn’t be voting in the first place. If the argument is simply that presently reliable Democrat voting blocks aren’t motivated enough to go get a voter identification card once every five years, paid for by the government, I extend my deepest sympathies to Democrat politicians everywhere who are going to have to find new, more dynamic groups to pander to. That is a disingenuous argument.

Another argument against the law is that it is unfair to the homeless, and is a new version of the “poll tax”. Too bad there is no cost to the card, thus no tax, and no argument. Both the Indiana and Georgia law contain indigency provisions for the identification card, simply requiring that one be able to prove who they are. The further argument that obtaining a birth certificate, which is valid over one’s entire lifetime, to prove one’s identity is too onerous, seems especially overboard to me.

A third argument against the voter identification law is that there are practically no instances of fraud reported, so there is no need for a voter identification card. A simple question for those making that argument - how do you know? Right now most states have the barest minimum identification process for voting. There is no way to check anyone’s identity. For instance, in a special election in Memphis, Tennessee, for a vacant state senate seat in 2005, the margin of victory was less than the number of eventually confirmed dead people who voted. Unfortunately in Memphis, the dead didn’t vote provisionally, which is allowed by both the Indiana and Georgia law for those lacking identification at the time they cast their ballot. But the dead vote often.

The prospects of a law having a certain political effect doesn’t not make it invalid. Besides, one cannot make the argument that the status quo is the right way to do things simply because it is the status quo. A “progressive” position would be ensuring every vote is valid. One would think rabid Democrats still suffering the 2000 hangover would be among the first to demand integrity at the ballot box.