Voter ID law upheld in Indiana, elsewhere

  An Indiana voter identification law has been upheld in court – and the ruling will affect more than 20 other states.
  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled April 28 that Indiana’s voter photo identification law is constitutional and rejected arguments that the requirement places an undue burden on voters. Democratic opponents claimed the law was a thinly veiled attempt to discourage voters who tend to support the Democratic Party.
  Professor Beau Baez, with the Charlotte School of Law, said opponents to the ID law argued the law discriminated against the poor, the elderly, and the religious “who oppose photo IDs.” He said that argument did not hold up under scrutiny.
  “[T]hey just didn’t meet their burden [of proof],” explained Baez. “I mean, there were just a few people, [and] just asserting that a lot of people can’t vote is not the same as actually proving that a lot of people can’t vote or will be unable to vote.”
  According to Baez the ID decision will be a great way to deter fraud, as well as a great way to “clean up” the state electoral rolls and create more confidence in the process.
  While Democrats who opposed the law tried to cast it as a progressive-versus-conservative issue, liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 decision. Stevens noted that a unanimous Republican majority enacted the law over the objections of a unanimous Democratic minority.
  He wrote that the very real justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.”
  However, Baez said it is important to note that no one is kept from voting just because he or she cannot present a valid photo ID. “There is a process in place to allow those people to cast a provisional ballot,” he explained. And those who do cast a provisional ballot, said Baez, will then have a 10-day period in which to affirm their identity in circuit court.
  Baez believes it is possible that another lawsuit could force a re-examination of the law in the future. But he said those bringing such a suit would have to prove actual discrimination against a large class of voters. Baez said such a case would require 10,000 plaintiffs before the Supreme Court would agree to hear a similar case.
  www.onenewsnow.com, 4/29/08