Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require
voters to produce photo identification without violating their
constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID
requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter
poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said
it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore
dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the
integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John
Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John
Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed
with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter
dissented.
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. Monday's decision comes a week before
Indiana's presidential primary.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by
Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights
groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called 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.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud —
of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being
inconvenienced by the law's requirements.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome
requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a
state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been
impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to
impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of
the state's citizens."
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said,
"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-
identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring,
possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not
severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase
over the usual burdens of voting.'"
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require
voters to produce photo identification without violating their
constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID
requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter
poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said
it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore
dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the
integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John
Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John
Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed
with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter
dissented.
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. Monday's decision comes a week before
Indiana's presidential primary.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by
Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights
groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called 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.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud —
of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being
inconvenienced by the law's requirements.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome
requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a
state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been
impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to
impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of
the state's citizens."
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said,
"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-
identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring,
possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not
severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase
over the usual burdens of voting.'"
Comments