High Court Upholds Indiana Law On Voter ID

In the Indiana case before the court, the state acknowledged that it had not prosecuted any voter-impersonation cases like those the law seeks to remedy. On the other hand, those who asked the court to strike the law -- including the Democratic Party of Indiana and numerous civil rights groups -- could not point to a specific voter whose ballot was not counted because of it.

Stevens said that called for a "unique balancing analysis" on the part of the court. Because the state's intent is legitimate, he said, the challengers "bear a heavy burden of persuasion, and one not met by the evidence in the case."

Stevens noted that it is "fair" to infer that "partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in Indiana's decision to pass the law.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," he wrote.

Souter and the dissenters said Indiana bore the burden of proof before subjecting its citizens to restrictions that would limit access to the polls.

"Without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in the state, much less a crisis, Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photo identification requirements in the country," Souter wrote.

For instance, Indiana recognizes only photo IDs that have an expiration date and have been issued by the state or federal government, leaving out most student or employer identification. And while other states make it easier for those without identification to file provisional ballots or sign affidavits swearing to their identity at polling places, Indiana requires a trip to the county seat.

More than 20 states, including Virginia, require some form of identification for voting.

Reaction to the ruling broke along partisan lines.

"The impact of the court's divided holding could embolden those partisans determined to use restrictive voter identification laws to elevate politics over fairness and inclusion,'' said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court could not come to a meaningful consensus which would have provided guidance to other States considering such legislation.''

But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the ruling will ensure that "the American people can have renewed faith in their government's ability to conduct fair and honest elections.''

Civil rights groups were united in their denouncement. "This is a disgraceful decision by a court that has no credibility on election issues," said Mary G. Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

But Republican officials who had agreed that the states could impose such restrictions found redemption.

"The court recognized that states have a legitimate interest in fighting voter fraud, and that not every minor 'burden' on voting constitutes 'disenfranchisement,' " said Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.