The issue is that the poor and the elderly are the people who are going to be left out from voting because of this additional hoop they will have to go through. Many of them do not have drivers licenses. It is hard enough just getting them to the polls on election day because of transportation issues let alone adding in another trip prior to the elections to obtain a government issued ID.

CIVIIL RIGHTS
Supreme Court Endorses Voter ID

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that "states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, upholding "an Indiana state law that requires voters to show a current government-sponsored photo ID." The law is generally regarded as the strictest in the nationbecause it "requires a voter to present a photograph as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government." In most cases, such a requirement "can be satisfied only by a current driver's license or a passport," which critics "say discourages voting among the elderly and the poor." The lead opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, argued that Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." However, "the case contained 'no evidence' of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter." Writing in dissent, Justice David Souter "said that for those on whom the law had an impact, the burden was 'serious' and the state had failed to justify it." Though the ruling leaves "the door open to future lawsuits" that provide more evidence of discouragement and disenfranchisement, critics of voter ID laws worry "that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls." Yesterday's decision "is not the end of the story on voter ID," said Wendy Weiser, Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Now it's up to legislators and courts" in the states to decide "if they are going to follow Indiana's lead" or "if they're going to protect the right to vote for all Americans."

SPREADING THROUGH THE STATES: Voting experts believe that "far from settling the debate over voter identification," the court's ruling "is likely to lead to more laws and litigation." "The court's opinion is likely to perform the same function for the photo ID debate as the Pennsylvania primary did for the Democratic presidential nomination -- hardening positions while doing little if anything to illuminate a path to resolving the conflict," says Doug Chapin, director of the Pew Center on the States. Currently, seven states require photo ID to vote, and another 18 mandate non-photo ID. This year alone, at least 10 states have considered photo ID measures, while "lawmakers in at least four states may seek to pass stricter regulations in the next year or so." The court's ruling in the Indiana case reignites debates in states that recently ruled on voter ID laws. The Texas Senate rejected a photo ID requirement in 2007, but now, "the Republican-controlled Legislature will probably be recalled to work on a new ID measure," according to voting experts. The Missouri Supreme Court struck down an ID law in 2006, but now, "Missouri lawmakers, who are in session, are likely to be encouraged in an effort to put the question on the ballot."

A PROBLEM THAT HARDLY EXISTS: In his dissenting opinion, Souter noted that Indiana adopted its excessively restrictive voter ID law "without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in the state, much less a crisis." In fact, the evidence cited by Stevens in his lead opinion is so thin that he was forced to go back to the era of Boss Tweed -- 140 years ago -- "to describe the corrosive effects of widespread fraud at polling places." Of the 38 cases of voter fraud the Justice Department prosecuted between 2002 and 2005, 14 were thrown out. In fact, due to a lack of credible studies to back up their allegations of voter fraud, conservatives have been forced to establish a front group led by the general counsel of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign to create such reports. Despite the lack of evidence that voter fraud is a problem, the court's ruling places "virtually all the burden of proof on plaintiffs seeking to argue that laws illegally restrict their voting rights," which experts say "makes it much tougher for voting rights groups to prevail in court."

THE BURDEN OF VOTER ID: While many Americans have a variety of proofs of identity, according to the Transportation Department and Census Bureau, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver's licenses. "A 2007 study by political scientists at the University of Washington found that about 13 percent of registered voters in Indiana lacked the required identification." Black and Latino Americans are far less likely than whites to have government-issued IDs. In a detailed study in Milwaukee, fewer than half of African-American and Latino adults had ID. The situation was even worse for young adults ages 18-24, with only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Latinos possessed a valid license, compared to 71 percent of young white adults. Those less likely to have IDs are not only poor or minority voters, but also the elderly, the blind and other disabled, renters, the homeless, foreign-born citizens, transgendered people, and urban residents.