70% Favor Voter ID Laws.

[candycorn]

“As for the "burden of proof" post above....what is the upside of having elections that aren't as sterile as possible?”

The burden of proof rests solely with the state to document that 'fraud' by identity exists to the extent that it warrants a restriction on the fundamental right to vote. Absent objective, documented evidence in support, the state cannot justify placing an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote, such as voter ID laws. That the state 'thinks' or 'believes' or 'feels' that voters 'might' attempt to commit 'fraud' by identity, or that the state seeks to 'make sterile' the election process does not justify placing an undue burden on the right to vote.

What is undue about the "burden" of producing a picture ID if the State issues it for free?

The issue therefore is not voter ID laws per se, but the failure on the part of advocates of voter ID laws to provide compelling, documented evidence that 'fraud' by identity exists to the point where the outcome of any election is changed. If advocates of voter ID laws can provide that evidence, then the courts would take no issue with the laws. But the state may not presume that all voters are guilty of 'fraud' by identity and compel voters to 'prove' that they are not guilty absent due process, nor is the state at liberty to seek to 'make sterile' the voting process at the expense of citizens' civil rights.

So we have to wait until there is a fraudulent election before we pass rules that would prevent a fraudulent election?