No burden

Your May 4 editorial "Democracy's loss," arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding an Indiana law requiring a photo ID to vote would place a new burden on poor or elderly people, was ludicrous. The law is eminently fair and well thought out.

This law makes provisions for people who are too indigent to pay for photo IDs. It allows people to file an objection based on their religious beliefs. It even gives voters who don't have IDs a chance to file a provisional vote and sort it out later. It doesn't deny anyone the right to vote. It just makes sure those who vote are in fact entitled to vote.

Do the poor and elderly not produce proper identification in order to collect their Social Security or other government benefits? Do they not produce IDs at the bank or the grocery store? What legal American citizen goes through life without proper identification? But if there is such a person, this law provides for them.

I guess it doesn't matter to you that for the last 20 years we have had rampant voter fraud. We are drowning in illegal immigrants who are more than willing to illegitimately vote themselves legitimacy. And yet you say it's a law with a strong whiff of voter suppression? Right!

Greg Dail

Cary

Photo ID whiners

Was your May 4 editorial regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on requiring ID in order to vote serious?

Requiring ID is one of the best ways in order to stop voter fraud. Democrats have been screaming about voting issues since they lost the 2000 election, yet every meaningful attempt to fix some of the issues has been rejected, usually for the same issue: It will hurt the poor.

Point of order: The cost of an ID in Indiana is $13 for those under 65, and it is good for six years. Are you actually proposing that someone can't work for two or three hours once every six years in order to purchase something that everyone over the age of 17 should have? (North Carolina's ID is $10, good for five years).

If the Democrats and The N&O are so seriously against voter ID, perhaps they or you could come up with an idea, rather than simply demagoguing the issue and, put plainly, whining.

Porter Good

Raleigh

Why no ID here?

Tuesday was my first time voting in the state for a number of years. I left for a little over 12 years, and voted in Florida. I understand the mess that happened in Florida during the Gore/Bush election of 2000. It is still talked about today.

With that in mind, imagine my surprise when I walked into the voting place listed on my voter registration card Tuesday and found how it is done here in North Carolina. All I was asked was my name and address. No registration card, no picture ID.

I was shocked by the lack of proof requested. Why was I given a voter registration card? How easy it would be for someone who knew me and my address to walk into the same voting place and place a vote in my name.

The only answer I can come up with is that this is another form of political pandering. It appears to me that a vote in North Carolina could be worth nothing if the right person decided to use another's identity.

Rita Fauls

Morrisville

Goes without saying

Holy mackerel! Thanks to a May 7 People's Forum letter-writer, we now know that voting is not explicitly cited in the U.S. Constitution as a right. It is amazing how many things the Founding Fathers omitted -- eating, breathing, sex between consenting adults.

The latter example is a case where a government photo ID, complete with medical certification, should be required. What were the Founding Fathers thinking?

Allen Spangberg

Cary

Laxity at the polls

I moved to Raleigh last June. When I went to vote the first time, I stood there with my photo ID and the poll worker told me to go vote. I asked if they wanted proof of who I was and was told no [voters have to sign their names under penalty of perjury].

My response was, "This is better than Chicago. You don't have to die to vote twice."

To board an airplane, you need photo ID. To cash a check, you need photo ID. Many stores ask for photo ID when you use a credit card. Why is it wrong to ask for ID when a person uses his or her most valuable asset, the right to vote?

Also, this is America, and we speak English. It is a requirement to become a citizen. Then why do we have ballots in other languages?

I want every legal American to vote, and proving that they are who they say they are is a small task considering the lives of our fathers and grandfathers that have been lost to protect that freedom.

It is time to wake up and make sure they have not given their lives in vain.

Gerald H. Ballan

Raleigh

Questionable stance

I would never be so foolish as to challenge professor Erwin Chemerinsky on a point of constitutional law, but if I were in his class, I'd raise my hand and -- very respectfully -- ask these questions:

1) Are you not arguing in favor of right without responsibility?

2) Of Indiana's 43,000 eligible voters who do not now have photo identification, what percentage would not vote anyway?

3) What percentage will obtain the necessary ID and vote?

4) Suppose, as you predict, other states follow Indiana and impose a requirement that all voters have photo identification: Will that not result in more people obtaining photo IDs? And will it really reduce the number of people who actually vote?

5) May we hear your views on the responsibilities of citizenship in this country, over and above the genuine concerns about race and partisan politics?

John Dendy

Durham