As Texas contemplates a voter ID law (not as strong as ours), politicians and other analysts there are studying the results in Indiana, one of only two states (Georgia is the other one) that allow no exception at all to the "no photo ID, no vote" rule. The consensus:
As the battle for requiring a photo ID to vote moves to the Texas House this week, supporters say the proposed law is necessary to fight widespread fraud. Opponents say it could block the votes of thousands of poor and minority citizens.
Neither claim is likely to be proved, judging by the experience of Indiana, which passed an even more stringent law in 2005.
Republicans who support voter ID were not able to offer much actual evidence of fraud. Democrats who oppose it have not been able to offer much actual evidence of disenfranchisement. So what it comes down to is how strongly you feel about inconveniencing come people in the cause of making fraud harder. The Texas proposal has a pretty good out: Voters can use multiple non-photo IDS as a substitute for one photo ID. But the Indiana law has a great big loophole: Absentee voters don't need the photo ID, and no reason has to be given for voting absentee.
