The Supreme Court heard arguments in two related cases: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Secretary Rokita on the constitutionality of Indiana's law requiring voter to show photo ID prior to voting.
Support or opposition breaks down along party lines. Democratic voters--who may be old or poor or homeless and may not have photo id's--may be unable to vote, Republicans don't have a problem with that of course. The constitutional question is whether a fundamental right is being unduly burdened (is it that difficult to get a picture ID?) or whether fairness of the electoral system is so tainted by these voters that picture ID's are necessary in order for elections to pass muster.
The Washington Post adds:
The problem with both sides of this debate is the absence of evidence. The Indiana Democratic Party and other critics of the ID requirement lodged their lawsuit before the law took effect; their "facial challenge" is based almost entirely on speculation and hypotheticals. Those in favor of the ID requirement also are on shaky footing. While preventing voter fraud is a legitimate governmental goal, the state failed to present any evidence that in-person voter fraud is or has been a significant problem. They say that proving voter fraud is exceedingly difficult and that this fact helps to account for the scant evidence.
Click for the oral transcript here.
Scroll down this link to get to the docket.
