In her dissent to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Texas could enforce its voter ID law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters."

No, Justice Ginsburg; the greatest threat to confidence in our election process is that too many people may vote who are not legally qualified to vote, or that may vote fraudulently.  How confident can honest citizen voters be that the elections are fair and their voices are being heard if we know that anyone who wants to can vote—often by registering on the spot at the polls?

The argument that the requirement to show identification in order to vote discriminates is a phony argument.  States make it easy to obtain valid identification -- usually through the motor vehicle department.  The problem is that too many people are too lazy to get off their behinds and go get an ID card.  (And these are usually the people who complain the most about the law.)

It is also the liberal side of the political scene that fights these laws because without an ID, it is too easy for those who do not have the right to vote -- usually illegal aliens. But it also allows convicted felons and similar people to vote.  And they almost always vote for those who give them their government handouts and other benefits.

Walt Bussey, a retired computer systems analyst, blogs at The Lemming Watch.