Supreme Court upholds voter ID law

Justices say states can make checks at polling places

The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states can require voters to show government-issued identification cards at polling places, overriding objections of Democrats who fear such a mandate will block some poor, older, and minority voters from casting ballots.

The court's 6-to-3 decision rejected a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law, paving the way for the state to impose the requirement on voters in next week's presidential primary there. About 25 states have such laws and the ruling could lead other states to adopt similar laws.

Supporters say such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, but critics say that little fraud exists and that the law will inconvenience sizable numbers of people.

In Massachusetts, the ruling is expected to do little in reversing long-held beliefs among many Democratic leaders that mandating voters to show IDs at the polls will disenfranchise many, particularly the elderly and the disabled. Critics say those voters may not have a photo ID card or do not regularly carry one because they may not drive.

"This is an urban myth that we have all these people voting who are ineligible," said Secretary of State William F. Galvin, later adding, "Our problem in Massachusetts is getting people to vote."

In yesterday's majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,' " even though the state did not have any reports of the kind of fraud that the law was designed to circumvent. He also noted a lack of evidence in supporting the notion that Indiana voters would be inconvenienced by having to show an ID.

Indiana residents are eligible for a free ID if they do not have a driver's license.

Voters also can cast a provisional ballot and later produce identification.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in the opinion, while Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas wrote separately in favor of a broader defense of voter ID laws.

The dissenting justices - Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter - predicted the law will disenfranchise some voters, with Souter writing that the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Passed in 2005 with the support of Republicans, the Indiana law confronted mass opposition from Democrats and civil rights groups, who charged that the law was unconstitutional and aimed at shutting out voters who tend to prefer Democrats.

Yet, in spite of the law's enactment, Democrats the following year picked up three congressional seats and won control of the state House of Representatives.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, told a reporter yesterday that the court was willing to burden "tens of thousands of eligible voters who lack a government-issued identification while accepting at face value Indiana's unsubstantiated claim of voter fraud." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The effects of the Indiana law could play out next week on national TV when a crush of voters is expected to turn out for the presidential primary contest between Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, in a race in which every vote is highly sought.

Galvin said he believes Massachusetts' law goes far enough in preventing voter fraud without forcing voters to always show an ID at the polls.

Voters, he said, are required to show identification when they register to vote, and at the polls election officials have the right to ask voters for identification when they suspect voters are misrepresenting themselves.

Galvin said there is little, if any, evidence of voter fraud in the Bay State.

The Massachusetts Legislature this session essentially killed at least one bill that called for a statewide voter identification law when it referred the legislation for study. A home rule petition submitted to the Legislature recently by the City of Lawrence, which wants voters to show IDs at the polls there, is expected to meet the same fate.

But proponents of a tighter voter ID law said yesterday they feel emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling and plan to resurrect the statewide legislation next session.

They say it only makes common sense to ask all voters to show ID at the polls.

"People have to show an ID to buy cigarettes or rent a video," said state Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, who has tried repeatedly to persuade the Legislature to support statewide voter identification. "We are trying to protect the integrity of the system."

Material from Associated Press was included in this report.