So, let me understand. Your complaint is that someone tried too hard to vote and uphold their responsibilities as a citizen?

She tried to register in two states, but never voted in Florida where she spends the winters.

There wasn't fraud here, just a misunderstanding of the law -- which is why we don't need to make it MORE difficult to vote. People trying to do the right thing can be put off by seemingly contradictory laws.

Yes, it was wrong to register in two states, but let's not make the process of voting more difficult or blame those trying to fulfill their civic responsibility. This woman was denied the right to vote in her home state, at least temporarily. That's the big picture here.

No, the big picture is that Indiana's photo voter ID law caught the fact that she was a part-time Florida resident voting in Indiana, and eventually revealed that she was registered in both states.

That was all discovered because she was required to show a photo ID and she showed a Florida DL. And - guess what - she HAD a photo ID, even though opponents of photo ID claim that old people are less likely to have a photo ID.

Her situation was indeed innocent as she had not voted in Florida and was not attempting voter fraud. But if Indiana did not have its voter photo ID law, the state would have no way to prevent thousands of people from voting in Indiana's elections that may have been registered in, and voted in, other states as well.

The incident proves the value of a photo voter ID law.

It shows the value of a solid voter verification system, which we'd both agree is important to deter fraud.

The photo part of it is not strictly necessary. A photo, in an of itself, proves nothing. Other proofs -- which were offered -- such as mail received at a registered address and financial records, such as government checks, are more credible.