all for one and one for all

The C-J editorialists on Indiana's law requiring an ID to vote.

They consider that onerous; I think that's laughable.

In any case, the last half of the last sentence illustrates one line of thought that results in those sorts of positions:

...given the bloody history of efforts to secure the right for all eligible Americans to vote, if even a single legal voter was deterred due to Indiana's disparate treatment, it was one too many.

"If even a single legal voter..."

A nice sentiment, but what about the trade-off necessary to execute that sentiment?

It's interesting that they're implicitly willing to trade-off all sorts of voter fraud-- for one legal voter.