Solving a problem that doesn't exist

LINCOLN -- Voting is at least as important a function in our society as driving a car.

Most people know voting is a constitutional right. Some people think driving a car is a constitutional right--one of a legion of sad commentaries on our misunderstanding and ignorance of how government works.

When the Legislature wants to change the law involving the qualifications for driving, you know it is virtually impossible to do it on the sly. No proposal involving who should be allowed to drive, at what age, until what age, what time or anything else gets by without in-depth explanations.

Proponents of change need to be able to show and not merely speculate: WHY is the change needed?

What do the numbers show? What are the established facts?

They certainly couldn't advance one inch with nothing more than the argument that it might help to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist. Nebraska's political roof would fall on them.

So, how about the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote?

What about proposed changes in state laws that would make it more difficult for some to vote? And the argument that fighting voter fraud, even when none has been alleged, justifies the same?

By way of arguing that voter fraud is a menace, some policymakers have come up with schemes that would burden voters with all manner of requirements -- special identifications or presentation of drivers' licenses or birth certificates among them. A driver's license version was before the Legislature at this writing.

What do the numbers show? What are the established facts?

In Nebraska, there haven't been enough rumors of voter fraud, let alone allegations of it, to warrant even the kind of cheap political baloney that emanates from the gutters of some political campaigns.

The view from here: When there is any serious proposal to change voter qualifications, Nebraskans would do well to demand the facts that show the purported need.