Common sense, we suppose

In what appears to be a victory for common sense, the Supreme Court upheld by a 6-3 margin yesterday an Indiana state law that requires prospective voters produce photo ID. Story here.

The dissenters Breyer, Ginsberg and Souter claimed the law targets “voters who are poor and old.” No, the law targets those who can’t provide reasonable proof of who they are.

But may we offer some mild dissent? We worked at the polls during the 2006 midterms (…and btw, it was a long, grueling 16-hour day and entirely worth it. Never before did we feel as much as descendants of the Founders as we did that day when we were temporary caretakers of the most fundamental act of democracy) and our instructions were pretty simple: we were there to facilitate the voting process – nothing more, nothing less.

California law does not require any ID, photo or otherwise. If we could not find a particular person’s name on the voter registration list, we were instructed to provide a provisional paper ballot to the individual, extending every courtesy to make sure that person was not disenfranchised.

The issue of legitimacy was left to the registrar’s office and we were totally fine with that. With our lack of experience and training, we would not feel comfortable denying anyone the vote because a) they could not provide ID or b) could not provide what would appear to us to be legitimate ID… a determination better left to bar tenders and bouncers.

A personal discomfort with the practical execution of these types of laws aside, on balance, we're good with the concept of requiring that the name listed on the voter registration list is really you.