Voter Fraud or Voter Exclusion?

George W. Bush crafted the current makeup of the US Supreme Court for rulings like the one they handed down yesterday upholding Indiana's voter identification law. It was a splintered, 6-3 ruling that some voting experts say won't have a great impact on presidential voting. Yet it comes little more than a week before that state's presidential primary. 

We know that Republicans argue for such ID laws, which require a photo identification in order to vote. They point to the need to root out "voter fraud", but usually present no evidence such fraud actually exists. That was pointed out in one part of the split majority decision of the court. Yet the back and forth over whether individual states can require photo IDs or other hurdles to the franchise ignores one central point.

Why do the states have control over the process in the first place? Yes, it's been their historic purview, but can anyone argue the mishmash of current state laws deters voter fraud? What about people who vote in more than one state (and don't think it doesn't happen)? And what of the partisan divide that created photo ID laws in the first place?

Why shouldn't their be, at least for presidential elections, a uniform, national standard to determine voter eligibility? The states may squeal like stuck pigs, but don't think the battle the court just ruled on is over. The court simply ruled the challengers didn't prove the law placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. There will be more challenges in the future.

Shouldn't we at least start thinking about making things the same for all of us?