Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law Despite Religious Objector Concerns
Indiana's law requiring a photo ID to vote was upheld as constitutional today by the US Supreme Court. The opinion (pdf), written by Justice Stevens, noted the burden that would be placed on some residents, including those who object to photos on religious grounds.
The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.An interesting footnote, attached to the notion that the burden "may not be justified as to a few voters", adds this:
Presumably most voters casting provisional ballots will be able to obtain photo identifications before the next election. It is, however, difficult to understand why the State should require voters with a faith-based objection to being photographed to cast provisional ballots subject to later verification in every election when the BMV is able to issue these citizens special licenses that enable them to drive without any photo identification.Justice Souter's dissent includes this:
[R]egardless of the interest the State may have in adopting a photo identification requirement as a general matter, that interest in no way necessitates the particular burdens the Voter ID Law imposes on poor people and religious objectors. Individuals unable to get photo identification are forced to travel to the county seat every time they wish to exercise the franchise, and they have to get there within 10 days of the election. Nothing about the State’s interest in fighting voter fraud justifies this requirement of a post-election trip to the county seat inverification process at the polling places.