Divided Supreme Court likely to uphold strict voter ID laws

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation’s strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.\nThe 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.\nWednesday’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 – from voting.\nBut Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the court, did not sound persuaded that the challengers had made their case.\n“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 IDs.\nMore 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.\nPaul Smith, representing the challengers, told the justices that there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud in Indiana. He said the law is a subtle way “to skew the outcome on election days.”\nIndiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said the vast majority of Indiana voters easily comply with the law. \n“You’re talking about an infinitesimal portion of the electorate that could be burdened,” Fisher said under sharp questioning from Justice David Souter.\nThe justices could use the case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement.