CNN 4/28/08
Indiana voter ID law ruled constitutional
Posted: 10:09 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday backed Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor, and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots.

The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next month.

At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large groups of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove they are eligible to vote.

SCOTUSBlog 4/28/08
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants
Monday, April 28th, 2008 10:01 am

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge, and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented. The decision, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and a companion case, was the only ruling of the day. The Court also issued new orders, but granted review of no new cases. The Court took no action on a major new case testing whether U.S. and foreign business firms may be sued for an alleged role in the apartheid policies of South Africa (American Isuzu Motors, et al., v. Ntsebeza, et al. (07-919).

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.