In a recent special election in Massachusetts, two citizens, who were also poll watchers, set up a table asking for voter identification when they checked in with the poll workers. This is part of an ongoing effort by a group in the state trying to pass a law requiring all voters to have a valid photo ID when voting. Right now it is not required in Massachusetts. Needless to say this has raised the ire of the Progressive Left, who continue to argue this somehow will disenfranchise voters.
While it's a valid argument these gentleman may have illegally set up this table at the polling place as there is a law prohibiting electioneering within a polling place, the real issue here is would require someone to show a picture ID to vote disenfranchise voters?
Currently citizens are required to have a valid ID for almost any type of transaction conducted in the state of Massachusetts. This includes opening a bank account, cashing a check, renting a video, going to the movies, picking up a prescription and receiving government aid. If identification is required for these transactions, meaning that an ID is available to these people, why would this be such a problem for voters?
Identification could be provided free of charge from the local department of motor vehicles, using current technology available at their offices. The cost could be covered through existing funds from the State. Certainly the integrity of the vote is worth the cost of such a program.
In Massachusetts, where the state legislature is overwhelmingly Democrats as well as all the major state offices, it can be seen why they would not want to require ID's to vote. In most cases of alleged voter fraud, usually the recipients of the fraudulent votes are Democrats, when they are investigated. It is the Democrats who are the most vocal in their opposition to voter identification laws.
In the town of Southbridge, MA, (where the billboard pictured in the MSNBC video linked above was located) during the recount from the November 2010 elections, many irregularities were noted in the handling of ballots. The recount came down to a claim from one voter who said he was not allowed to vote, yet none of the poll workers were able to recall his being at the polls. Would having to show some type of identification prevented this and the resulting cost of a special election? It is difficult to say, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry?