Could "one" then contest that the state in question must make access to official photo id free of charge and easily accessible? (Even as a 15th amendment argument.)

IF photo id is a reasonable requirement for all citizens to vote THAN access to affordable(free?) i.d./easily available i.d. MUST be guaranteed, no?
(That will be a little bit of a budget hit for the states won't it?)

As stated on another thread, this is a serious problem! I hope the Democrats have a plan for this, because its the first attempt at voter supression they have made and succeeded in daylight!

This ID to vote thing is one of the biggest scams going. I cannot but agree with Amitai Etzioni on this one.

With FL 2000, it is clear that a period of reaction to the era of the Voting Rights Act is setting in, just as one set in establishing Jim Crow in the wake of the Reconstruction. This period often, as here, has profound race political implications, hence the term "The New Racism". The Tories may have lost the Revolutionary War, but they seem to come back and win the peaces.

I agree with the poster, this has voter disenfranchisement written all over it. I can't claim to know for a fact that corruption has worked its way into every arm of justice but I think it would be naive to think otherwise, especially with neocons at the helm.

They've accumulated immense power over the last eight years and that power has been weakening since the 2006 election. And of course, because of their galactic incompetence. Actually, the only thing they've been pretty competent with is planting corruption.

That power they've enjoyed is being threatened and they'll do anything to thwart anyone from taking that power away.

You can fix elections, rig the electronic voting machines, as was done in Florida in 2000. It has to be a relatively close election though to get away with tipping it one way or the other. Usually 2 to 5 points. Often, the ones fixing the election try to match the exit polls as accurately as possible. That's why the vote split tends to expand in the last hour or two of reporting the results.

I think the only way you can fight that kind of thing is to win by a landslide.

It is interesting that "progressives" howl at the decision of the Supreme Court for a multitude of reasons when the natural advancement of computer systems and identity tracking software would eventually lead us to this point. If it were not for a history of ballot box stuffing and other nefarious methods of tilting an election one way or another (both parties are guilty) then this argument would not be here at this time and place. Arguing that this decision gives an advantage to Republicans is silly. Every individual is able to acquire an ID (why in this post-9/11 world would we not expect this minimum requirement?). Every person who walks in to a voting booth need only prove they are registered and that they are who they say they are. Does this not also preserve the right of the individual who is slighted when an "underpriveleged" person walks into the voting area and gives false information in order to vote. Why would the "underpriveleged" need to fake it in the first place unless of course they were voting for a certain party at numerous localities? This decision merely starts the cheating at a different point for the parties.
I DO take offense at including illegal aliens in the 11 percent of Americans statistic claiming they have no ID. There is no way that 1 in 10 people who are here legally do not have identification.

I would compliment Prof. Etzioni for making a sensible suggestion as to this latest Repub attempt to limit poor voters from the ballot box, but this week's newspapers also carried an item about how Florida, for one, has forced the League of Women Voters to suspend its voter registration drive. Thus my concern is: how could the access to voter IDs be any less onerous than voter registrations? The answer, of course, it could not be, so when Florida decides to discourage voter registration whatever will prevent the Sunshine State from doing as well to voter IDs?

In Michigan citizens returning to society from prison are entitled to vote but the systems destroys their ID -- driver's licenses etc upon entrance to the prison system. So the Michigan Prison Re-entry program has had to devote hours of time to try and help individuals re-establish their identities. The Sec. of State has refused to recognize the prison picture ID as government issued ID so substantial time and resources have been devoted to tracking down birth certificates from Hawaii or substitutes in situations where the county court house records are otherwise not availble.

The burden is much greater than a simple poll tax.

This case baffled me because as a recent graduate of law school I worked on this issue in our Constitutional Litigation Clinice and we HAD evidence that the minorities and elderly are particularly disadvantaged in terms of getting ID.s. Stevens supported this holding so it cannot be viewed as a right wing ruling!

I wondered whether the attorneys were unprepared.

At any rate it is over now. Short of a Constitutional amendment the law has spoken.

What we need is a massive grass roots program to help voters get ID's.

In the limited case in Indiana it may not have been added but it is NOT hypothetical and the catch is that to prove it you must have the slighted person AND the injuring party at the same time. Other than that, in the eyes of the responsible controlling authority it appears to be a case of an upset voter arguing to vote "again".

So you would agree that that situation can not happen because why? Obviously if a person had to provide identification the chances of fraud are far less. If there is a desire to have every vote count, shouldn't the desire also be to have every legal, and only legal votes count?

Why is the statistic of 11 percent of people have no ID taken for granted? How is that possible? Every 18-25 year old male is required to register with Selective Service. They don't require a SSN but must register (ID???). To obtain a drivers license requires an ID. To get a bank account requires an ID. To travel to any other part of the world and on virtually every form of transportation requires an ID. To get your Social Security payments you must prove you are who you say you are. Most cities require you to register your pets for crying out loud. Yet some one is saying that 1 out of every 10 Americans do not have ID. That is suspicious.

How should we adjust expectations for Indiana's primary? Since the decision was to uphold the law, wouldn't the Obama campaign
have encouraged voters in IN to get photo IDs a few months ago?

This purpose of the law is help Republicans by disenfranchising the poor and elderly. The judicial activists sitting on the Supreme Court says that's ok.

If Democrats stand around whining they deserve to lose. The Democratic party's response should be to improve voter turnout programs sufficiently to insure that everybody has a chance to vote. That might mean Democrats spend a little money on local organization.

Until Democrats can secure the appointment of judges who truly care about both the Constitution and the American people, Democrats have to play the Republican game. They just have to play it better than the Republicans.