I want to be carded

In an unexpected move on my part, I am moving today into the realm of discussing politics on my blog. I have never been interested in politics until the last year, when I have started to pay more attention and have more of an opinion. I still don't understand everything (does anyone?), and I don't enjoy heated debate, but I am much more comfortable holding my own in a friendly sparring discussion than I ever have been before.

This morning I read an article in an online magazine that does a lot of political commentary and satire. This article discussed the controversy that is currently surrounding the voter-ID law in Indiana. I had some thoughts as I read the article that I wanted to share, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts as well.

Recap: There was a law passed in IN in 2005 that requires people to present government-issued photo identification when they show up to vote. The idea is to prevent voter fraud (think back to Bush v. Gore in 2000). The argument is that there are so many people still on the rolls who have either died or moved away, that any John Doe off the street could present himself as both John Doe (his own name), and four hours later also present himself as Herman Smith, who passed away 4 years ago, but is still on the records. This is not only fraud, but skews the vote. The law was passed in the the State Legislature (a Republican Congress at the time), split along party lines, and signed into effect by a Republican governor. The people who are fighting against it are state Democrats and the ACLU (I'm not surprised there -- they fight against everything). They are arguing that it infringes on the rights of poor and indigent voters (about 12% of those in the state), that it's unconstitutional, and that voter fraud isn't actually a problem. The argument is also that this law was passed by Republicans to prevent the votes from being "skewed Democrat."

So that's the background and the current arguments. I remember when I went to vote in the 2004 Presidential Election. I was shocked when I got there, they asked my name, and waved me on through after crossing it off their list. I wasn't very comfortable with it. If I go to the grocery store to buy milk and bread, I swipe my credit card, sign my name (with my unique signature), and still have to present government-issued photo ID. If I write a check (which has my full name, address, phone number, and account information printed on it, not to mention again that unique signature), I still have to present photo ID. And if it's from out of state, that opens up a whole new can of worms (because other states' governments don't count, apparently). This is to buy milk and bread. But I can vote without either signing anything or even presenting proof of identification? I wasn't comfortable with that. Something as important as voting should carry a heavier weight than the last ingredient I need to finish making dinner.

I don't understand the arguments against this law. The ironic thing is that it isn't the people who are being inconvenienced bringing the lawsuit against the state -- it's the ACLU. It seems to me that this law protects the voter. I want to be asked to present photo ID when I show up to vote. It offers a little more confidence in the all-powerful "system." It makes me feel more secure. It also makes it feel like I count for something, and that my vote does in fact make a difference. What do you think?