Constitutional rules often comport with common sense. The Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause — so burdensome to law enforcement, some argue — requires officials to look for evidence of crime where they think they’ll find it and not elsewhere. Common sense.


So it is with an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling that the state’s voter ID law violates the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The law requires in‐​person voters to show ID, but makes no attempt to verify the identities of absentee voters. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law against a recent challenge, but the Indiana court struck it down based on a broader protection in the state constitution’s equal protection clause.


Think what you will on the legal merits. (I generally appreciate courts breathing independent life into their state constitutions.) What is interesting here is that the result is imbued with constitutional common sense.


Requiring ID at polling stations would have a marginal effect on vote fraud because it makes it harder to impersonate a voter or manufacture a vote‐​qualified identity. But the risk of in‐​person voter fraud is very low compared to absentee ballot fraud, which the Indiana law did not touch. The Indiana voter ID law was tantamount to caulking windows to keep out the cold but leaving the front door open. Because of the disproportionate effect on different classes of voters, the court struck it down.


Voter fraud will continue to be a hot issue, and states should continue to tune the balances they strike between voter access and vote integrity. My concern is that the issue might boil over and produce national ID proposals, as we have seen in the past.