In 2011, a diverse bipartisan coalition of state legislators enacted a law requiring voters to present photo identification to vote at the polls. This requirement went into effect this year.

However, as soon as this special election was over, bills were introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate to repeal voter ID. Some will argue that voter ID should be repealed because it lowers turnout among disadvantaged groups, increases costs to taxpayers, creates delays at the polls, and some will say that voter fraud does not occur.

Over the years, these arguments have been made repeatedly to thwart efforts to safeguard the election process.

Substitute “photo” for “signature” and it becomes apparent just how hackneyed today’s recycled anti-voter ID arguments are:

Board of Elections Chairman Albert J. Lamarre, who had been indicted for election fraud in 1940, opposed signature identification as too costly. Democratic House Majority Leader James H. Kiernan, who had been defense counsel in an election fraud case in 1939, claimed that a signature identification requirement would act as “a deterrent among some groups of voters,” slow the process of voting at the polls and “discourage voter turnout.”

Such voter identification fear-mongering continues to prove unfounded as more states enact and successfully implement photo voter ID.