When it comes to requiring voters to show a photo ID, I agree with supporters as well as with opponents of such laws.

Making people who take part in elections produce a government issued identification card with their picture and an expiration date is a sensible check against voter fraud.

But the Indiana law the Supreme Court recently upheld goes too far.

So do the laws in six other states – Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota – that require people to show a photo ID as a condition for voting. Given the stakes, I don’t think it’s asking too much of would-be voters to verify their identity, but I’m really troubled by the way these laws do that.

Late last month, by a 6-3 vote, the high court rejected challenges to the Hoosier State’s law that requires voters to show a federal- or state-issued photo ID as a condition for voting. Anyone who shows up at the polls without one may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if they go to a county clerk’s office within 10 days with the required photo ID.

Indiana voters can avoid this requirement only by swearing that they are indigent or have a religious reason for not being photographed. Voters who don’t drive can get an ID card from a state’s motor vehicle administration by producing a passport or birth certificate.

It’s hard to believe Indiana’s Republican-controlled Legislature didn’t tailor its law to suppress the votes of Democratic voters who are disproportionately poor and more likely than others to have a hard time meeting these requirements.

If legislators in Indiana and elsewhere are so concerned about avoiding fraud at the polls, why not put photos on voter registration cards?

Lawmakers worried about voter fraud should appropriate money for portable photo registration card-making machines. They could be taken to churches, shopping and community centers, public schools, neighborhood fairs and professional sporting events – anywhere people gather in large numbers.

That’s a sensible approach. Issuing non-photo registration cards, then insisting people produce a separate photo ID, isn’t.

Indiana’s law places an unnecessary burden on voters – a burden that weighs heaviest on the poor. Many of them don’t own a car and don’t have a passport. For many reasons, getting poor people to register to vote can be a challenge. Demanding that those who do register get a photo ID is onerous.

As it is now, anyone who applies for an Indiana voter registration card and doesn’t have a Social Security number or driver’s license is assigned a voter identification number. They also must produce proof of identify. So why not simply put a picture of the applicant on the voter registration card?

Some banks now put a person’s picture on their debit card. Health clubs and YMCAs issue membership cards with photos, as do most higher education institutions.

The Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, which carries tens of thousands of new passengers each week, issues each passenger a photo ID card that’s also a room key and onboard credit card. And it takes just a few minutes to issue these cards.

So why does Indiana – which claims to be concerned about the possibility of voter fraud – issue a non-photo voter registration card and then ask voters for a separate photo ID? The Supreme Court considered this question and found nothing unconstitutional about the state’s action.

I find nothing rational about it.