Voter id

As you've probably heard the Supreme Court is going to hear a case on the constitutionality of Indiana's new voter id law. The New York Times has the rundown today. It begins as follows:

INDIANAPOLIS — In April 2006, a federal judge upheld Indiana’s law on voter identification, the strictest in the nation, saying there was no evidence that it would prevent any voter from having his ballot counted.

But on Election Day last November, Valerie Williams became that evidence, according to lawyers in a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. After Ms. Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so.

The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver’s license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.

“Of course I threw a fit,” said Ms. Williams, 61, who was made to cast a provisional ballot instead, which, according to voting records, was never counted. Ms. Williams — who has difficulty walking — said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded.

So, the reason the original judge threw the case out was because there was no evidence the law would inconvenience any voters. Interesting, because if read somewhat further into the article, you find this:

Supporters of the law, most of them Republicans, say a requirement for state photo identification card is a prudent step toward curbing voter fraud. They say the requirement helps restore confidence in the voting process by removing the potential for fraud, though Indiana has never cited a case of “voter impersonation,” which is what the law is supposed to prevent.

So it does matter to the court if there's is no one who has been injured by the law (how could there be, after all, it was a new law that hadn't been tried yet), but it doesn't matter if there have been no instances of the crime that the law is intended to prevent.

Of course, that's not the real reason for the law at all. The real reason Republicans want the law is to prevent as many poor (and presumably Democratic leaning) people as possible from voting.

Naturally, the prospects for the Supreme Court upholding this law appear good. That's the Republican packed court for you.