An Indiana state court recently struck down the state's voter ID law, the most restrictive ID law in the country, and the Indiana State Supreme Court has just announced it will hear arguments on appeal March 4. We may be seeing--and may need to see--more cases like this going forward.

Because they're back.

Just in time for the new year and new legislative sessions, the voter identification and proof-of-citizenship trains have restarted their engines and are chugging down the state tracks once again.

It being an election year wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

For as we know the voters who are far and away more likely to be disenfranchised by these nonsensical, ineffective measures are lower income, young people, minorities, the elderly, new Americans and voters with disabilities. The research that it is these categories of citizens that are blocked from voting because of these rules at this point in the debate is voluminous, and the evidence of fraud at the polling place of the type an ID would prevent or catch continues to be nonexistent. This includes the lack of any known charges involving anyone impersonating another voter at the polls in the huge turnout 2008 election. Proof-of-citizenship bills may be even more pernicious, as we witnessed thousands of eligible citizens have their registration applications rejected when Arizona passed such a measure a few years back.

At least nine states and a city in Massachusetts (of all places!) are considering bills introduced in January 2010 that make identification requirements for voting more strict and/or require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. As usual, the debates are partisan. This is particularly true in South Carolina where it is estimated that 178,000 South Carolinians do not have the photo identification they would need to vote under the proposal.

The Associated Press observes:

"While a fifth of the state's voters are over 65, 27 percent of those without photo IDs are that age. Nonwhite voters make up 36 percent of those without IDs, although they account for 30 percent of the state's registered voters, according to state Election Commission data."

The state senate has now passed this law. Several more states have similar bills that have been carried over from 2009.

Some of the places where this is going on are not all that surprising. In places like Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin, this has been tried before on more than one occasion. But now we may be seeing some new disturbing players in this game. For years, Virginia has requested that voters present identification, but allowed people who forget to bring it to sign an affirmation under oath as to their identity and still cast a regular ballot. This has worked just fine for the state. In Virginia, a bill was introduced recently that requires proof of citizenship with registration applications, as was a bill requiring identification to vote without the affirmation alternative. Why, what is the impetus for this?

There is no evidence that in-person voter fraud has suddenly become a problem in the Commonwealth. On the other hand, Virginia has become a destination state for more and more new Americans, another group documented as being more likely to be disenfranchised by voter ID laws. And in Massachusetts, the city of Marlborough is considering a municipal ID law--although the sponsor of the proposal flat out admitted:

I have no specific evidence of 'voter fraud' to justify the measure.

Less, than a year ago Utah made its voter ID requirements more restrictive and the results have been predictable. As a recent article put it:

Utah's law to erect barriers against voter fraud may be hurting the very people who vote the most. A number of people in their 80s and 90s have come forward to say they can't vote because they don't have a picture ID--such as a driver's license--because of their age, said Rep. Marie Poulson, D-Salt Lake City...Jason Yocum, Salt Lake County recorder deputy, said his office has received a number of calls from older voters who were turned away at the polls. 'Many of these people, I understand, left frustrated and never returned,' he said.

It has been evident for many years now that the claims about fraud are a fraud themselves and the motives behind passage of ID and proof-of-citizenship bills are usually not one of true concern for the integrity of the voting system. If the sponsors and supporters of these bills were concerned about electoral integrity, they would be concerned about the millions of people who are prevented from voting because of our badly flawed voter registration system.

The upshot of this is that the fight against these discriminatory efforts to block some voters from the polls is far from over. Watch for it to heat up again. We are, after all, in an even numbered year.