Steve Deace, in his August 31 column, offered to give $100 to the first person who could give him one good reason why it’s “unfair” to require a valid photo ID in order to vote. After all, he argues, people need to provide a photo ID to get a marriage license, claim a prize won during a sports radio contest, cross the border of a foreign country, and at the start of a new job. “Why,” he asks, “should someone have to show a valid photo ID to buy a gun, yet not be required to show one before being allowed to vote?”

But Mr. Deace’s last thought hooked me. “After all,” he wrote, “giving a good reason why (providing a photo ID) is `unfair` should be easy, right?”

Well, no.

For one thing, people have different takes on what it means to be “fair.” Equality of results? Equality of opportunity? And how to balance the legitimate needs of groups with differing values and goals? So I went on-line and found the following definition, courtesy of the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Fairness is “marked by impartiality and honesty – free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.”

Next, I checked out a Wikipedia article entitled “Voter ID Laws in the United States,” since my prior education about the issue came from listening to snarling talking heads. While reading the article, several points caught my attention.

First, I learned that every state has its own voting laws, with differing regulations about what qualifies as valid voter IDs. For example, according to the article, “Texas law recognizes government issued photo identification and weapons permits but not college IDs.” In Kentucky, a “citizen may vote if they have Photo ID, or if a precinct officer can vouch for the voter.”

Next, I learned from the Wikipedia article that “a study by New York University’s Brennan Center claimed that of the US population that is of voting age, 11% lack government-issued photo IDs.” The eligible voters within this group consist mostly of elderly people with limited incomes, many of whom either can’t drive or can’t afford a car. In order to comply with the United States’ Constitution’s 24th Amendment, which prohibits poll taxes, states that require Voter IDs must provide an ID to voters at no cost. In Wisconsin, however, a state employee was fired for telling other employees that the IDs were free by law, and that they should inform people who may need them. Additionally, the location of the agencies dispensing these cards and the availability of public transportation might make it more difficult to obtain them.

I also learned from the Wikipedia article that according to Slate, the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush “devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out polling-place fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case.” Finally, I learned that a 2007 report prepared by the staff of the federal Election Assistance Commission found that, among experts, “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud”.

So, Mr. Deace, does any of the material above tweak your “fairness meter?” Do the examples I cite demonstrate impartiality and honesty, and are they free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism?

I report; you decide.