It was four presidential elections ago when the world first became aware of “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” — descriptions of incomplete punctures on paper ballots — and of the stark reality that in 2000, a handful of individuals judging such ballots in a handful of Florida precincts would determine the next leader of the free world, with the ballot battle ultimately moving the U.S. Supreme Court.

For a while, Florida’s electoral process became the eye of the storm — and the butt of jokes — regarding its lack of speed, efficiency and integrity. But many people watched, fascinated, as an elaborate recount unfolded in the national media, and a state of 6 million registered voters went to George W. Bush by a margin of just 537 votes.

Today in Pennsylvania, the scenario would play out quite differently, and not necessarily for the better, since the U.S. Supreme Court last week let stand a ruling essentially barring news reporters and photographers from polling places in the commonwealth.

The justices, without comment, declined to hear the case. But its silence suggests the court did not find any violation of constitutional rights in this particular press restriction.

First Amendment concerns remain, nonetheless. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette challenged the law after its reporters in November were denied access to polling places in Allegheny and Beaver counties.

Coverage during that particular election was crucial, the newspaper argued, because the state was imposing new regulations requiring voter identification, and reporters wanted to see how voters reacted the first time they were asked for photo IDs. Claims of disenfranchisement by a handful of voters, included in a separate lawsuit in Commonwealth Court, seem to bolster the need for independent oversight.

Proponents of voter ID, who are predominantly Republicans, say it cuts down on the potential for voter fraud, while opponents, who are mostly Democrats, say it’s intended to keep some voters away from the polls. Both of these arguments merit the presence of an unbiased media witness at the polls; without such a presence, doubt and suspicion can only fester.

Irregularities happen at polling places. Americans know this because reporters traditionally and faithfully have told them so. Barring news reporters won’t change the fact that irregularities still happen. It will only mask the things — and people — that cause them.