The U.S. Supreme Court thinks that there is voter fraud. From National Review Online:

“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

And yet Democrats seem to bury their heads in the sand, claiming that it will somehow suppress votes despite the fact that the government is bending-over backwards to get people who need it a free ID. Indeed, even when Democrats themselves are convicted of organizing illegal voting:

Just this week in Fort Worth, Texas, a Democratic precinct chairwoman was indicted on charges of arranging an illegal vote. Hazel Woodard James has been charged with conspiring with her non-registered son to have him vote in place of his father. The only reason the crime was detected was that the father showed up later in the day to vote at the same precinct. Most fraudsters are smart enough to have their accomplices cast votes in the names of dead people on the voter rolls, who are highly unlikely to appear and complain that someone else voted in their place.

These are the same arguments being foisted on people here in Wisconsin. The same, old tired victimization rhetoric that doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Verifying that the person voting is who they claim to be isn't racist. It isn't sexist. It isn't ageist. It isn't discriminatory. 

It's sensible.