Supreme Court considers photo ID voting law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a law requiring voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot, its most important voting rights case since Bush v. Gore settled the 2000 presidential election.
The high court stepped into a partisan political battle and heard arguments involving Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law just a day after New Hampshire residents selected candidates for the November 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Democrats and other opponents say the law is unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for some people to vote, especially minorities, the poor, the disabled and the elderly. Those groups are most likely not to have government identification and also tend to vote for Democrats.
Supporters, mainly Republicans, defend the law as necessary to prevent voter fraud and to heighten public confidence in the integrity of elections.
Indiana was one of a number of states to enact such a law in the wake of voter fraud allegations in Florida and elsewhere during the closely fought 2000 elections.
The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote halted Florida's vote recount, giving the election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. The Indiana case was the first big election law dispute to reach the court since the Bush v. Gore case.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote on the court evenly divided between conservative and liberal factions, seemed skeptical of the challenge to the law.
'MINOR INCONVENIENCE?'
"You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?" Kennedy asked Paul Smith, the attorney for the Indiana Democratic Party, which is challenging the law.
The law requires a photo ID such as a driver's license to vote in federal, state and local elections. Those without identification may vote using a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter travels to a government office to prove his or her identity within 10 days of the election.
Bush's two court appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appeared supportive of the law.
Alito cited a commission led by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, that recommended a voter ID requirement. Alito also said many other nations around the world require voter IDs.
The court's four liberals criticized the law.
Justice John Paul Stevens referred to the partisan battle underlying the dispute and said the state legislature in adopting the measure split entirely along party lines.
"Don't you think it's fair to infer that this law does have an adverse impact on the Democrats that is different from its impact on the Republicans?" Stevens asked Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement, who defended the law.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed concerned that the law imposed a burden on every indigent person who lacks an ID.
Under sharp questioning from Justice David Souter, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher acknowledged that a very small number of voters could be adversely affected, but he said the vast majority already complied with the law.
The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.
(Reporting by James Vicini, editing by David Alexander and Vicki Allen)
