It is not right to pass any law that restricts a person's right to vote.
That said, we have never been able to understand why presentation of a government-issued photo identification before voting is considered an onerous burden by some people.
A story in Thursday's Maui News cited former President Bill Clinton's objection to moves by some states to require photo IDs when showing up at a polling place.
The story quoted Clinton as saying that requirement would threaten the gains made by minorities through the civil rights movement over the past 50 years. Why?
If you go to the local bank to cash a check, they require you to show a photo ID. If you go to the airport to board a commercial airliner, you are required to show a photo ID.
The bank and the Transportation Safety Administration require those identification documents to prove you are who you say you are. Certainly preventing the fraudulent casting of a ballot is at least as important as preventing the fraudulent cashing of a check.
We admire Clinton and we've stated here that he is one of the two best presidents of our lifetime. But we think he is absolutely wrong on the photo ID question. Certainly states like Tennessee will provide a free photo ID to people who do not have a driver's license or a passport.
So, where is the burden? Isn't the sanctity of the ballot box worth the burden of having to pull your ID out of your wallet at the poll?
Maybe we're missing something but this looks like an easy, nondiscriminatory way to block some voter fraud.
* Editorials reflect the opinion of the publisher.