The voter ID issue may soon have a Supreme Court decision based on an appeal from Indiana where state law requires identification for voting.

Right up front, it makes sense that a person be able to confirm that he is who he says he is — that he is the person who is on the voter registration list — given that we have a prevailing illegal alien issue in this country as well as a growing identity theft problem.

Now, that said, let’s talk about motives. We would be very naive to think that much of this issue is not fed by political strategies.

There are those who want the ID law in effect nationwide because they feel it would help their party’s candidates. There are those who do not want it in effect because they feel that would help their party’s candidates.

There are some, probably a minority, who would like to see the ID law established purely to protect the integrity of our voting system within the context of a democratic republic.

Many analogies could be applied to this argument. Let’s say that if a liquor store requires a valid ID to prove that you can legally buy booze, it would seem logical that a nation should require an ID for you to help choose a president and a congress who can send you to war and spend your tax money. Misuse of either can cause serious damage.

Not requiring identification will do little to diminish voter apathy and complacency. Those ailments are caused by other things, mostly laziness and ignorance. Too many people would rather complain rather than to help fix things. ID won’t impact them one way or another, although some may add it to their list of excuses.

Yes, the ID law has merit lending to the integrity of our system. Unfortunately, many of those who promote it or oppose it don’t. To them, it’s just a political strategy — a means to an end.