The WSJ may call this “opinion,” but how many op-eds do the legwork required to incorporate 9 apposite quotations and at least 7 samples of supporting evidence in a survey this comprehensive? (Can someone round up an article about the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling on Arizona’s new voter ID law? Here’s where the on-line WSJ.com could have done use a favor, with some pertinent links.) Many worthwhile concerns are aired, such as the American Enterprise Institute’s Fortier suggesting early voting “should be limited to 10 days before an election” to try to allow voter knowledge to be as uniform as possible. John Fund cites admonitory examples of how post-election litigation can drag on, at a time when voters are already ... More »

The WSJ seems to be focusing on only one side of this issue. Voter fraud is typically a concern of Republicans (and other conservatives), while Democrats (and other progressives) argue that Voter ID laws disenfranchise poor, elderly, and disabled voters. That more progressive viewpoint is nowhere in the article. There also seems to be an assumption that the increase in challenges to election contests is motivated solely by the fact that Al Gore challenged the 2000 election ("'In 2000 in Florida, we broke a psychic barrier,' says Doug Chapin"). There is not even a single mention of the fact that most of these more recent challenges have been because of faulty electronic voting devices. The article seems to me to be a piece ... More »

very informative piece discussing a critical issue. Unfortunately, it does not provide good comparative analysis on how US voting procedures differ from voting in other post-industrial democracies. Piece also fails to discuss partisan repercussions of voter fraud and disenfranchisement.