Candidates aren't the only ones causing controversy this election season. Frenzy over poll policies flourished in the wake of last Monday's Supreme Court ruling regarding voter identification laws. In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's 2005 voter identification law requiring that voters show valid photo ID before casting a ballot. Michigan, which also requires voters to produce this type of identification before stepping into the booth, should not be distracted by the Supreme Court's decision, but instead use this as an opportunity to reexamine its own policies, prioritizing voter access to polls to ensure that elections are a representative as possible.

More than 20 states require some form of voter identification at the polls, including Michigan. Photo IDs put an added burden on voters. They cost money, and generally require individuals to take time off work to make it to the Secretary of State's office during its rigid hours. This adds to the burden of voting and disproportionately affects those who do not have the need to acquire ID for other reasons and lack resources or transportation to do so simply for the purpose of casting their ballots such as senior citizens.

Although intended to combat voter fraud, the necessity of these policies has not yet been proven. As the dissenting justices pointed out in the Indiana case, little evidence has been brought forth proving that fraud is occurring at rates high enough to warrant these measures, especially considering the barriers they create. Even Indiana's Secretary of State Todd Rokita admitted that there were no such prosecutions currently underway in his state. As things stand now, the benefits of exclusive voting laws don't outweigh the drawbacks.

If evidence of fraud can be produced, it may then - and only then - be reasonable to implement photo ID requirements. The state needs to realize, though, that if this requirement stands, it is its job to minimize the burden this policy puts on voters. It becomes the State's job to get creative and provide disadvantaged voters with IDs through voter outreach. Programs like Missouri's are a good example. Until the summer of 2006 when its photo ID requirements were struck down, the Missouri state government sent vans out to issue photo IDs to the elderly and other voting groups that might otherwise have had trouble obtaining them.

At this time, photo IDs are an unnecessary measure undertaken for unsubstantiated reasons. Voter fraud may be a problem, but until that is proven there is no excuse for rash voting laws that effectively leave a part of the electorate without a voice.