What some see as a barrier to voting others see as protection of the electoral process.

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision Monday that builds a wall against voter fraud. Indiana law required voters to present a photo ID before voting, and the court — finding that the law did not impose “excessively burdensome requirements” on voting groups — allowed the statute to stand.

The ruling is a boon to people concerned about vote security, and a blow for those who worry that more states might attempt to pass restrictive voting laws. They failed in their efforts before the Supreme Court because a majority of justices considered Indiana’s law a reasonable way to ensure fair elections.

More than two-thirds of U.S. states now require some type of identification at polling places. In Minnesota, name and address must be confirmed, but by a variety of proofs and not necessarily photo ID. Even so, some legislators persist in introducing plans to require photo ID.

States should not wantonly toss roadblocks in the way of voters. But the court correctly opined that election integrity is paramount. We should all be concerned that our democracy breaks down when voting procedures are loose and open to fraud.

Even when no real voter fraud is proven, the appearance is deadly.

Is the cure too extreme? No. All persons willing to vote can locate the proper identification with fairly minimal effort, and if they need help there are people who can help them. Proper identification is necessary to perform all types of transactions in this country, from opening a bank account to traveling by air. Should anything less than secure ID be required for casting a vote?

As is often the case in these arguments balancing election integrity against ease of voting, where one stands often divides along party lines. In Indiana, Republicans favored the law and Democrats opposed it on the grounds that persons who are most likely to be disenfranchised are minority voters and the elderly — voters most likely to lack proper identification and also most likely to vote Democratic. The same party line split, unfortunate when election integrity is at stake, exists in other states.

It has been reported that as many as 20 million people lack photo identification, and indeed they tend to be minority or elderly. And it is entirely believable that a good portion of them will not bother taking steps to secure vote-proof identification. But in the interest of maintaining fair elections, making voting “easier” is less important than ensuring voters are who they say they are.

Trust ... but verify.