In certain circles, you just say the words "voter identification" and you elicit certain yowls of disenfranchisement, racisim and on and on until it seems just by the mention you have transformed into some hideous monster. This is rather disengenuous on many levels, the least of these is the disenfranchisement argument. In several of the states that have tracked voter participation before and after there have been increases in voter participation across the board. A few of the states have separated out who the participation encompassed discovered that the greatest increase in participation was among minorities. It is rather odd in a day and age where ID's are required for things from alchohol purchase to airline flights that there should be objection to asking for ID to influence the course of not only your own life but for the 3,000,000 other citizens.
Some would say that it wouldn't make that much difference, I strongly disagree! Take the election of a Senator from one state and let us see how it affected every single citizen of the united States of America. This one Senator from an upper middle western state was hotly contested, under review and very, very close. I'm speaking of the election of 'Senator' Al Franken of Minnesota. He was declared the winner by the smallest of margins. He was the deciding vote in the US Senate for the "Affordable Healthcare Act" aka Obamacare. In recent months it has come to light that over 1000 people (felons) voted illegally in the Senate race, a race that was declared with a margin under 300 votes. As of today over 100 have been convicted of voting illegally.
A fraudulant vote disenfranchises all citizens.