Earlier this winter, the Supreme court debated whether or not Indiana could require voters to present a state-issued photo ID at the polls. Today, one week before Indiana's primary, they upheld Indiana's law, ruling that it is not an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

As Justice David Souter said in his dissenting opinion, the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

The ACLU, along with many student and minority activist groups have fought the Indiana law and similar measures in other states because the ID requirement disadvantages primarily the young and the less wealthy. Although Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor, that is only a surface solution to the problem. The fact remains that many still don't have them, and obtaining a new one can be an arduous process. Those who do not drive, or have recently moved and don't have IDs listing their current address, risk disenfranchisement. And while the Supreme Court pointed to a lack of evidence of that disenfranchisement in their decision, there's also been almost no evidence of the kind of voter identity fraud the law purports to prevent.

The decision also sets a precedent for other states with similar legislation pending, such as Arizona, Georgia and Missouri. According to the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, the Missouri Secretary of State estimates that as many as 200,000 eligible voters in that state lack government-issued IDs. And a Rock The Vote poll in February found that 1 in 5 young voters nationwide do not have a photo-ID with their current address.

That's a lot of people. While election fraud is obviously something to be concerned with in this country, so is discouraging participation among already marginalized voters.

Comments (20)

1. Sorry, you're SURPRISED at this?

   Easiest argument in the world to make, and note it was a 6-3, so hardly "Bush v. Gore".

   Plus THIS, Ms Currier, comes off as disengenuous whining...

   "Although Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor, that is only a surface solution to the problem. The fact remains that many still don't have them, and obtaining a new one can be an arduous process."

   It's FREE and it's an "ardous process"?

   Okay, so can we apply that to the next "universal health care" debate???

   Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 2:55pm

2. Is it harder to get beer at an liquor store with out a picture ID?

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 3:38pm

3. Isn't souter the one that also ruled the state can eminent domain for private profiteering? He's a f*&king joke!

   Posted by HAPPY2 at 04/28/2008

   Who appointed him?

   Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 3:50pm

4. Can anyone say "stare decisis'? Knew ya could!

   The Court has always deferred to the states in matters of the franchise. The Warren Court was a great exception here (and naturally, a great reason it was/is hated by the Southland). But every other court has reaffirmed the rights of states to decide the qualifications of voters, even during Reconstruction. So, the Roberts court is simply swinging back into the mainstream of High Court tradition by saying the states set their own rules.

   This is what Roberts promised and that's what he is delivering. We can expect decisions that continue to reflect the state of the art in jurisprudential thinking. Provided that we are talking about the 19th and not the 21st century.

   This is the flatulent and bloated canard of GOP harangues about "activist courts." The courts are never "activist." They are always behind the curve, impeded by the reactionary body of case law decided during their previous centuries of safeguarding the status quo.

   Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 3:56pm

5. Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008

   Genuis Bush 1

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 3:56pm

6. It's a good thing FL and MI don't require photo ID's to vote, otherwise all those thousands of primary voters may have been 'disenfranchised'. Oh, wait.....what?

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/28/2008 @ 4:10pm

7. Posted by Benchrest at 04/28/2008

   How many candidates did the MI voters get to pick from, BENCH?

   Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 4:23pm

8. one.

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

9. Actually, it's also a dodge by Indiana to say that the photo ID is free. In order to get one, you need either a birth certificate or proof of naturalization papers, plus one other form of ID. However, it turns out that the birth certificate has to be an officially certified copy, and those are not free, at least not in all states or localities.

   And even if you've got the certified birth certificate, I've often heard from drivers that having to go to a motor vehicles office is quite the arduous experience. And we are talking the fundamental right to vote, here, not getting a liscence to operate a 3,000 pound hunk of machinery at 65 mph.

   Another thing to stumble over, which could knock people like me off the rolls who have an employer-provided photo ID. Indiana says the ID has to have an expiration date on it.

   Add it all up, and it's starting to look more and more like the old Jim Crow literacy tests and poll taxes.

   And all to solve a non-crisis of in-person voter fraud - usually illustrated with nearly 50-year old anecdotes - while not addressing the one area of voter fraud that we actually have recent case law on, i.e., absentee ballots.

   Not to mention that traditional conservatives used to oppose any movement towards a universal ID as creeping statism. Now it's the conservatives leading the charge. Hypocrites!

   Posted by cka2nd at 04/28/2008 @ 4:31pm

10. Posted by cka2nd at 04/28/2008

    You DO have a driver's license, don't you?

    Posted by ACook at 04/29/2008 @ 4:42pm

11. cka2nd at 04/28/2008

    You DO have a driver's license, don't you?

    Posted by ACook at 04/29/2008 | ignore this person

    No, I don't. I lived in New York City most of my life and relied on subways and buses, and while the city I currently live and work in does not have nearly as good a mass transit system as New York, it is usually enough.

    Of the two or three really useful skills I didn't have when I left New York, I found learning to shoot far less expensive than learning to drive. Less environmental impact and more satisfying, too.

    Yes folks, this Red WANTS the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment guarantees the INDIVIDUAL'S right to own guns. Arm the working class!

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/2008 @ 5:17pm

12. Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/200

    I agree with the right to bear arms....but do you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle? Or an M16?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2008 @ 6:19pm

13. Finally!

    Now maybe the dead in Chicago will only vote 2-3 times (lol)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 @ 6:19pm

14. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/200

    Nah they will still vote just as many times they will just carry a fake ID now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2008 @ 6:23pm

15. Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/200

    I agree with the right to bear arms....but do you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle? Or an M16?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2008

    Setting aside the principle that the right to bear arms includes the right to resist domestic tyranny, i.e., the government and it's armed representatives (cops, army), I wouldn't want to be a member of a "well-regulated militia" facing down an invading army with nothing more than a hunting rifle.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 09:58am

16. Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/200

    I don't think we are going to get invaded anytime soon. If the potential for getting invaded happens then I would say yes you need an M16. However since there is no potential external threat of invasion I would say the right to bear arms is good when it is in reason. Should citizens have access to Rocket Launchers? No. There is no use for it. Keeping M16s away from citizens stop the streets from becoming battlegrounds. Are we going to give everyone automatic weaponry then arm the cops with tanks so they can actually fight crime?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 1:03pm

17. I don't think we are going to get invaded anytime soon. If the potential for getting invaded happens then I would say yes you need an M16. However since there is no potential external threat of invasion I would say the right to bear arms is good when it is in reason. Should citizens have access to Rocket Launchers? No. There is no use for it. Keeping M16s away from citizens stop the streets from becoming battlegrounds. Are we going to give everyone automatic weaponry then arm the cops with tanks so they can actually fight crime?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008

    Well don't you sound like a fair wheather friend of liberty? (Just busting your chops!) I'm all for a living, breathing constitution that adapts to the 21st Century (anyone else see Antonin Scalia's interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes?), but a fundamental right is a fundamental right, whether we are on the verge of war and invasion or not.

    Besides, we've seen the militarization of the police all around the country over the last 20 years, and it's just speeded up since 9/11. Many police departments already have SWAT teams, armored personnel carriers and enough weapons (and cops! NYC has tens of thousands of them!) to act like an occupying army. And some of them already do.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 2:36pm

18. Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008

    The Constitution says right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. As long as the government lets you have rifles and hand guns they are not taking away our right to bear arms they are just keeping it within reason for the protection of everyone. Do we want to be like 3rd world countries where you can just pick up an ak47 off the street. It's funny Republicans will interpret the right to privacy to mean within the confines of the ability to make us safe. Meaning they can change the amount that that right means as long as it's to keep us safe. But when it comes to the right to bear arms they think they should be able to have a tank in their back yard. If you want to interpret one you have to leave all up to interpretation. There has to be a limit on the accessibility of guns or you are going to start to see gangs that are armed better than our military. You don't need an automatic weapon unless you are planning to kill people. You do need grenades. You don't need a stock pile of weapons in your house. The normal person needs no more than one handgun. Hunters need a hand gun and a couple of rifles. The hand gun is for your protection. This is not the revolution. The red coats are not going to come kick down your door. Besides if you had a child and a thief kicked in your door would you really want to start firing off an AK47? You'd kill everything in the house but yourself.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 3:38pm

19. Cccomf01,

    I'm all for careful training in how to use guns, and that includes teaching kids not to think of them as something they should know nothing about and have nothing to do with (which just increases the attraction, a la booze, drugs and sex). To give credit where credit is due, what I've seen of the NRA's "Eddie the Eagle" educational materials is very reasonable and age appropriate in teaching kids about gun safety.

    I'm for a very expansive readings of our rights in general. Some friends of mine might say my socialism is being tempered with libertarianism or even anarchism as I get older, but I have few illusions in the ultimate fairness of the state. I am not, however, a "Government is the problem, not the solution" type either. I don't have a problem with sensible legislation, and no, I don't want to see our streets turned into Mogadishu. But I support the formation of workers' militias, or self-defense groups like the Deacons for Defense. If the ruling class has its cops, armies and Pinkertons - sorry, Blackwater mercenaries - then why shouldn't the working class and the oppressed have the means to defend themselves?

    We are not in a revolutionary situation, but we are in a class war, and frankly, I'm tired of always having the armed, uniformed types working for the bosses.

    Signing off for the day. Have a good night.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 5:29pm

20. Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008

    True but the working class will never be able to afford what the Pinkertons will. You will always be outgunned.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 5:36pm