Indiana removing illegals from voting

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) - The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday appeared ready to support an Indiana law requiring valid photo identification at voting polls, but the court indicated it could order the state to alter its law so people can more easily comply.

Indiana has the strictest voter identification law in the U.S., requiring people to produce an original birth certificate to obtain an ID or personally appear before election officials at a county’s courthouse to provide affidavits proving their identity.

“This case involves a law that directly burdens our most fundamental right: the right to vote,” said Paul Smith, the Washington attorney who represented Indiana Democrats.

The law was passed on a party-line vote by the state legislature in 2005. It was immediately challenged by the Indiana Democratic Party, which argues the law is unconstitutional because it prevents some people who are eligible to vote from casting a ballot on election day.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher defended the state law, arguing the law seeks to combat possible voter fraud with requirements that are reasonable for the majority of the voting population. “We’re talking about an infinitesimal portion of the population who could be burdened,” Fisher said.

Democrats asked the Supreme Court to throw out the entire law. But the court, potentially split along conservative and liberal lines, showed little indication it was prepared to do so.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s main swing vote, suggested a possible outcome when he asked whether Indiana’s law could be changed so it is easier for indigent people without a birth certificate to meet the voting requirements. “Could it be less stringent?” Kennedy asked.

However, Kennedy must convince a majority of justices, possibly relying on a liberal-leaning justice such as Stephen Breyer, that upholding the law with some changes is a better outcome than rejecting the Democratic challenge.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and fellow conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito indicated they support the Indiana law and think voter identification requirements are needed to reduce the potential of voter fraud. U.S. voting practices that rely only on individuals’ signatures, the chief justice said, present “a significant potential for fraud.”

Scalia argued repeatedly that the Indiana Democratic Party may not have standing to bring the lawsuit, suggesting it should be thrown out and the court should wait for a challenge brought by individual voters. But U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, appearing in support of Indiana, said he believes Indiana Democrats have met appropriate legal tests to challenge the law.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens all expressed varying degrees of reservation about the Indiana statute. Ginsburg, for example, asked several questions about the burden the law placed on indigent individuals while Breyer cited a Georgia voter ID law that actively helps those without an ID obtain one.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, was customarily silent.

The cases are Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25, and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21.