This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that Inidana can require voters show a government-issued photo ID. Here’s what they’re saying:

In one of the most closely watched cases of the term, the US Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s requirement that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the polls. At least 17 other states were awaiting this decision before going ahead with similar laws of their own.

The vote was 6-3, with Justice John Paul Stevens joining the mostly conservative majority.

Democrats had attacked the law, saying it created a burden for poor, minority, and handicapped voters, who would have a harder time getting government-issued IDs. They accused Indiana officials of passing the law to suppress the minority vote.

Here’s what USA Today’s Joan Biskupic wrote about the ruling:

Indiana’s statute, adopted in 2005, bars people from casting a ballot unless they present certain photo identification issued by the state or federal government, such as a driver’s license or passport. If a person does not have such an ID, he or she can get an alternative but generally needs a birth certificate to proceed.

The decision by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal members of the court, emphasized that the challengers had not presented sufficient evidence that voters were kept from the polls or otherwise hurt by the law Indiana says prevents fraud.

The court did not shut the door to other lawsuits against ID laws that have proliferated since 2001 and have been adopted largely by Republican legislatures over complaints from Democrats. The ruling endorses the procedures in Indiana, which will hold its presidential primary May 6.

Stevens was joined by the more conservative members of the bench, although the six in the majority varied in their reasoning and produced two separate opinions.

Dissenting were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. They said the law puts an unconstitutional burden on voters.

Here’s part of Justice Stevens’ opinion:

“Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago mayor, though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud, demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

“The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religious objections to being photographed….In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.”

Translation: There’s abundant proof that voter fraud exists. There isn’t proof that requiring photo ID creates a real burden on anyone. Here’s a portion of Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion:

“The lead opinion assumes petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law ‘may have imposed a special burden on’ some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny. That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality as well as adherence to precedent, I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners’ premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.”

“This calls for application of a deferential ‘important regulatory interests’ standard for nonsecure, nondiscriminatory restrictions, reserving strict scrutiny for laws that severely restrict the right to vote.”

This undoubtedly will spur more states to pass similar legislation. The Supreme Court essentially said that they weighed the possible disenfranchisement of voters against possible voter fraud. They essentially said that there isn’t proof that this disenfranchises voters but there is proof of voter fraud.

The good news is that voter fraud is being taken seriously and that the states have just been given a great tool in fighting voter fraud.

Technorati Tags: SCOTUS, Voter ID, Voter Fraud, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. They did something that makes sense? Maybe we have chance on the 2nd Amnt ruling coming up.

   Comment by george — April 28, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

2. Democrats had attacked the law, saying it created a burden for poor, minority, and handicapped voters, who would have a harder time getting government-issued IDs. They accused Indiana officials of passing the law to suppress the minority vote.

   What they really mean is that it created a burden for those who want to get away with voter fraud.

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — April 29, 2008 @ 8:42 am