Supreme Court Leans Toward Voter ID Law
Washington
Supreme Court leans toward upholding voter ID law
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.10.2008
"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.
The justices are faced with a partisan dispute that echoes the bitterly divided decision that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush. Now, as then, the court seemed divided along ideological lines.
Wednesday's arguments were over a challenge to an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that is backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud.
Democrats and civil rights groups oppose the law as unconstitutional and call it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the court, did not sound persuaded that the challengers had made their case.
"You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?" Kennedy said near the end of the lively session. Kennedy did, however, voice concern over some aspects of obtaining an ID, including the difficulty the poor have in getting the birth certificates that are needed to get photo ID.
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. The Indiana case should be decided by late June, in time for the November elections.
The justices could use the case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud vs. those of disenfranchisement.
Paul Smith, representing the challengers, told the justices no evidence of in-person voter fraud was found in Indiana. He said the law is a subtle way "to skew the outcome on election days."
Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said the vast majority of Indiana voters easily comply with the law. "You're talking about an infinitesimal portion of the electorate that could be burdened," Fisher said under sharp questioning from Justice David Souter.
Justice Samuel Alito, who appeared more sympathetic to Indiana's case, posed the question that troubled several justices. With little evidence of fraud or of voters who have been kept from voting, Alito said, "The problem I have is, where do you draw the line? There is nothing to quantify the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden."
Chief Justice John Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, and Justice Antonin Scalia indicated strong support for the state law. Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, but generally votes with his conservative colleagues."
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/219855
