And I've never known the local news to get it wrong or overstate the problem for the sake of a good story. But be that as it may . . . .

What should be done is to approach the situation rationally, not with kneejerk reactions. Is there really a problem with "dead people" and out-of-state people voting? Then their names must be on the registration rolls. Requiring photo IDs won't help if they're on the rolls to start with. It's a reasonable "fix" if the problem is people who come to vote are claiming to be someone they're not, but it doesn't address the problem at all if the issue is that names are on the rolls that should have been deleted.

If dead people and out-of-state people are voting, then requiring photo IDs in response avoids the problem while making people feel better and think the problem is being fixed. You fix that problem by getting the voter registration rolls up to date and keeping them up to date.

Yes, I get that. But a concrete 900 could be a game-changer in this election.

It might be the lack of sleep, but I'm not following here. It seemed to me the way I heard the story was that John Smith was showing up at the polls claiming to be Frank Cooper, but Frank Cooper was actually dead. If Frank Cooper is dead, then requiring an ID would theoretically* keep Frank Cooper from voting. Are we saying that this was actually a case of election fraud where someone official was going in and tampering with those votes?

*Yes, fake IDs can be produced, I know, we've been over that.

What I'm saying is this:If Frank Cooper is dead, but someone claiming to be him voted as him, it means Frank Cooper is still on the voter registration rolls. Requiring a photo ID might or might not keep an imposter from voting. But removing Frank Cooper from the registration lists would keep anyone from voting as Frank Cooper. The logical and more effective solution to the problem is not photo IDs, it's up-to-date registration lists.

You use the asterisk portion to hand-wave the issue, as though it doesn't exist ... but in actuality, it invalidates the sentence "theoretically keep Frank Cooper from voting" pretty much entirely.

Pollsters are usually volunteers, there is no way they'll be able to accurately judge the validity of an ID, nor should they be expected to. Requiring ID papers over one potential problem, but creates others to take its place.

I'd also like to see a link to this report touting a statistically significant number of fraudulent voters. Anyway, requiring photo ID for out of state voters would not necessarily stop them from voting either. If I moved from MD but did not get a license in my new state, I could use my old MD license to vote in MD elections. Hell as a property owner in Baltimore, I should have that right!:p We ALL see people in our states driving around with license plates from other states that clearly live permanently in our states. Those people likely don't have up to date driver's licenses either since that puts them in the system to alert the state about their cars.