I welcome Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis’ commission to hash over ideas to improve elections. Some proposals he is considering, such as making it easier to vote by absentee ballot, have obvious merit.

But, without more evidence than I know of that voter fraud is a genuine problem, Mollis courts heartache by raising the prospect of requiring a photo ID at the polls. The idea will engender ill will and suspicion among disabled, elderly, or minority Rhode Islanders who now lack such cards and would find it inconvenient, or insulting, to have to acquire one.

I look to Sen. Juan Pichardo, a Latino, and Rep. Joseph Almeida, a black man, to persuade commission colleagues to deep-six this proposal. Mollis himself pledges to weigh legitimate concerns and be fair. “I will never introduce any kind of legislation which puts up barriers,” he says.

Good, and hold him to that.

Meanwhile, let the commission, which Mollis will chair, tackle some issues he did not include in his initial list. For example, last year I urged Mollis, his Democratic primary foe Guillaume de Ramel, and Republican candidate Susan Stenhouse to find a way to ensure confidentiality for primary voters. That is, you ought to be able to vote in a primary without there being a record of whether you took a Democratic or Republican ballot. Mollis has put Stenhouse on his commission, and maybe now they can come up with a solution.

A more sweeping topic for the commission to consider as it weighs proposals to submit for General Assembly action is an overhaul of Rhode Island’s campaign finance system, which gives subsidies to major-office candidates who accept spending limits. The subsidies are smaller than they should be, and you see candidates choosing to forgo them and the spending limits.

Financing of these elections should be almost wholly public. This would do wonders to wean politicians away from smelly, favor-seeking contributors.

Legislative candidates also deserve public financing.

A coalition that includes Common Cause backs a dramatic expansion of the subsidy system. Let’s see Mollis invite coalition members to lead off testimony at the hearings his panel will hold.

Overall, Mollis says, “Democracy works only when voters participate.” He says they need to see the importance of voting.

I agree. A bold step would be to find a way to deter candidates from hurling slime at one another, or at least improve the public’s ability, now nearly nonexistent, to sort through it.

Negativity and distortion especially plague races for higher office. One candidate runs an attack ad, the foe retaliates with a response ad yelling “Liar!” and the arms race is on. People decide one candidate is as bad as the other and throw up their hands.

Let’s see Mollis & Co. propose a vehicle, some kind of legally constituted arbitration tribunal, to which candidates aggrieved by a particular ad or exchange of ads could turn and obtain a judgment as to whom is telling the truth. Maybe retired Supreme Court justices could sit on it.

I liked Mollis’ appointing Stenhouse to his commission. She ran a spirited 2006 campaign. After last week’s news conference, at which Mollis introduced the members and outlined their mission, I needled Stenhouse and said she must have been sitting there, looking at Mollis orchestrating the event, and thinking, “I ought to be up there doing this.”

Instead, she said she was glad to be involved. But how does she get over the idea she should be the secretary of state? She said, “Well, maybe some day I will be!”

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com