Why is it that most grocery stores have better security and verification systems in place than our state's polling places on Election Day?

State lawmakers are pondering that question this month as they consider a bill bouncing around in the state Senate.

If passed into law, the bill would require voters to show identification before they can cast a ballot in next year's election.

We've always been a bit baffled that this is not already common practice. Most voters would have better luck going to a polling place and casting an erroneous ballot than they would attempting to use a check at most grocery stores.

Many, many retailers have long required shoppers who wish to write checks to also provide identification. It makes common sense to us.

Think you can just hop on a commercial airplane without an ID? Think again.

Isn't the integrity of our election system more valuable than a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk or a seat on an airliner?

We think so.

Yet surprisingly a number of people are opposed to the bill.

Their logic seems to be: no one can prove that voter fraud has occurred so forcing identification would be for naught. Besides, those critics say, having to provide an ID would discourage some people from voting. Both seem fairly weak arguments.

Just because widespread voter fraud cases have not emerged does not mean erroneous votes are figments of someone's imagination. Phony votes are cast in each election. Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves.

And on their other argument that some voters may be discouraged from voting if they have to show proof of ID, well, we're a little worried over anyone who would refuse to provide evidence of who they are. What do they have to hide?

Any great debate about this proposed law is much ado about nothing. Let's follow the lead of retailers all across America and pass the law requiring IDs at polling places. Maybe then lawmakers can get working on bigger issues such as who we're going to adequately fund our state's education system.