I have to admit, I was genuinely surprised by the anti-voter sentiment expressed recently at CG's place, most of it along the typically-conservative line of "What's not inconvenient for me is not inconvenient for anyone else." (i.e., "Everyone I know has a driver's license, so it must not be a burden to require a driver's license to vote.")

Well, maybe it's more like a classic conservative position: "Somebody somewhere is getting something he doesn't deserve, and we have to stop it, no matter how many people don't get something they do deserve as a result." We're seeing this again over Katrina relief, so don't think this is an old "welfare queen" story. It's a myth conservatives won't let die.

Nonetheless, it seems that the Baker-Carter commission report on voting reform suggests universal and lifetime voter registration, in addition to some of the provisions that rightfully raise eyebrows. So why the photo ID that would keep only those who don't have the means (time, money, opportunity) to get one away from the polls, but not the more comfortable people who can do it easily?

Liberals on the commission had to accept a trade-off to secure conservative support for policies designed to increase the voter rolls so dramatically. That tradeoff was a series of measures designed to address concerns about voter fraud, such as presenting photo IDs at the polls, regulating voter registration processes and preventing people from registering to vote in more than one state.

Some of these anti-fraud proposals are problematic, particularly if adopted in isolation by states ignoring other recommendations in the report. Absentee voters - who are disproportionately well-off - need only sign their ballot to prove validity, while voters who show up at the polls would have to present a photo ID. And although the commission recommends IDs be free, some states may still charge fees and establish other practical barriers that would be tantamount to a modern-day poll tax.

As I said in comments at Dustbury: if you have to pay even one cent to the government just to able to vote, then by definition, it's a poll tax. The cost of being alive to vote is not a poll tax. The cost of being eligible to vote is not a poll tax. The cost of a driver's license is not a poll tax if you want a driver's license. The cost of an ID card that you get solely because you have to present it to vote is a poll tax. The reason for implementing it doesn't change its definition.

The reality is that the number of votes affected by fraudulent activities is dwarfed by voting barriers like lack of universal voter registration. But if a candidate you prefer loses because of fraudulent votes, as some argue happened in last year's razor-close gubernatorial race in Washington, fraud is a very big deal. Voters certainly demand that politicians "play by the rules," and in exchange for universal registration, democracy advocates should agree on what steps to prevent fraud would be acceptable.

Read the entire article. I think people who are used to driving and carrying a driver's license everywhere are kind of inured to the idea that some people don't do this. Some people don't carry photo ID or credit cards everywhere. Some people don't routinely carry items that have to be cancelled and replaced if they're lost or stolen. I doubt more than a third of currently registered voters could tell you where their Voter Registration Cards are right now.

Of course, even though I think the 2000 election was wrongly decided in the courts, I disagree with these authors that the Electoral College "malfunctioned" that year. But we've been through that before.