The United States Supreme Court Monday ruled in the case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. This was a 6-3 decision that an Indiana Law which requires voters to show there photo Identifications before being allowed to vote was not unconstitutional. This ruling makes it possible for other states to require photo identification before people may cast ballots. The Indiana law required the use of government issued photo id’s such as passports and drivers licenses. Some opponents of this decision have said this could disenfranchise many voters and deny them access to the polls. It is very interesting that this ruling comes down a week before the Democratic Presidential Primary in Indiana. I am not a conspiracy theorist though.

I think this law simply prevents voter fraud, and I know plenty of states that already require at the least a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. I think this law makes sense and if people are prevented from voting there are several mechanism to protect them and insure that their rights are not violated. Identification is needed to buy liquor, get into night clubs, get onto airplanes, and to get into government buildings. I do not see it being a very far stretch to require people to show proper identification to vote.

I’m not naive though, I know it is still highly possible in this day and age that people’s voting rights can still be violated. The argument made about this decision by several civil rights groups and soon to be democratic party leaders in various states is that this ruling will disenfranchise and discourage the poor, the elderly, and many minority voters. Some might even argue that it is a modern day attempt to update the poll tax and that the conservative supreme court is trying to disparage minorities again.

That argument isn’t valid though, due to the fact that the analysis of this case by traditionally liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the court’s opinion. He stated that “the states intent is legitimate, (to create the law) and that the challengers bear a heavy burden of persuasion and one not met by the evidence of the case”. The challengers of this law can not really present an overt undue burden that would make this law extremely difficult for people to vote. Its not a poll test, its not a grandfather clause, or a tax before you vote. All that is required to vote is a person having a government/state issued Id.

Justice David Souter one of the dissenting Justices stated that “Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photo identification requirements in the country”. Also, that those targeted by this law are voters who are poor and old. I don’t think this is the case. The opinion left available the possibility that the outcome could be different in another state where voters could provide evidence that their voting rights had been truly impaired.

This opinion is a serious decision, and is one of the most important voting rights cases since Bush v. Gore that the Supreme Court ruled on. I think it could be misconstrued by some people though. Voter fraud is important to prevent and the court made a responsible ruling in this case. Many states have similar law such as this and the burden is not that much on citizens. I know the possibilities are real for voter disenfranchisement, however in this day and age a valid Id is not too much to ask for to participate in something as important as voting. We live in a post 9/11 society, it is very important that every is who they say they are. Identify theft is serious and the court is upholding a law that will prevent several possible injustices.

Technorati Tags: United States Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Voting Rights, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David Souter, Bush v Gore, 9/11