One columnist in North Carolina has a suggested voter ID compromise.  He wants to use the Chicago voter ID model  as a compromise solution – photo ID for early voting, but no photo ID for election day voting based on the reasoning below: 

The irony, of course, is that Democrats oppose Republican efforts to require a photo ID to vote.

And yet President Obama happily pulled out his driver’s license to vote in his hometown and even joked that the photo didn’t show as much gray hair as he has now.

I didn’t support the voter ID law proposed in North Carolina, but it may be that Illinois has a good compromise. Only require a photo ID for early voting.

Why? Because voter fraud by impersonation probably would be much easier to pull off at an early voting site where election officials are less likely to know you.

At my relatively small precinct, people know each other. You’d be taking a big risk to walk in there and claim to be someone you aren’t.

The reasoning is flawed as most communities except in the most rural areas, are so populous and transient, that even neighbors in a highly populated suburb or city often don’t know each other well enough to confirm the identity with a high degree of certainty – much less know all voters in a particular precinct.  Poll workers would have to serve as the identity police vouching for all voters in a precinct.  Just as photo identification makes sense in early voting for the unique identity security reasons associated with the form of voting, it also makes sense for election day precinct voting for many of the same reasons.  Reactionaries against photo ID should note that the process can work in all types of voting situations and is not some nefarious racist plot to suppress voters.  Just as photo ID is appropriate for early voting in heavy blue states like Illinois and federal law for first time voters, it is appropriate for other states in other situations and forms of voting, including absentee voting.