What? You don't carry your ID with you at ALL times? What if you are asked by the police? In Kansas, you can go to jail for failing to reveal your identity to police (even if your NOT a suspect)!

In close elections of the past, DEAD PEOPLE have had higher turnout than the living. (I know, its more corrupt machine politics.) But, dead people don't carry IDs. So now they can't vote. Too Bad! Thats what this kind of law was designed to thwart. Corrupt Machine Politics!

I always carry my voter registration and personal ID to the voting booth.
Doing so has allowed me to vote in some elections where the poll workers had a hard time finding my name.

If carrying your personal ID is to inconvenient, you should cast your ballot at home (absentee). It will get counted only IF its a close race, IF there are enough (uncounted) ballots to change the outcome.

Sent by Harold | 1:27 PM ET | 01-09-2008

If the opponents are worried that requiring a voter to have ID creates a burden there are ways of providing easy ways. You have to register to vote so the ID can be provided at registration. The state should be willing to spend the money to pay for IDs for those who cannot afford it.
There are so many creative solutions to be had that it shouldn't be a burden.

Sent by Hillary | 3:18 PM ET | 01-09-2008

The problem with the ID regulation is that it doesn't pass an undue burden test. In some states the name on your ID must "exactly" match the voter registration rolls, it must also contain the same address, it must be an official "state" ID and on and on. The simple fact of carrying your ID with you does not provide relief.

As in Bush v Gore the problem is the lack of a standard, which brought in the equality clause of the 14th Amendment. Richard L. Hansen's article on the Stanford Law Review website, "The Death of Bush v Gore", goes into the detail of how election law is this country has not benefited from the promise of reforms from this Supreme Court decision, reforms many people boasted would be the result.

And now the Court is again faced with an election law case, having made Bush v Gore, a non-precedent bearing case.

The stalking horse for the originalists on the court will be the issue of federalism and how they construe a regulatory matter against what is obviously a straightforward Constitutional issue, the right to vote.

Sent by Chester | 4:43 PM ET | 01-09-2008

Everyone doesn't need a photo ID to live, as much as some would like you to believe.
I know people that don't drive and don't use air travel; their checks are deposited in an account created years ago when they had an ID. I haven't been asked to show an ID anywhere in over 3 years, though I have one. In fact, the last time I did show an ID was to get a new one when it expired, so this idea that people cannot get along in society without an ID is not true. Banks issue credit cards for thousands of dollars by mail without ever seeing an ID.
These are people's rights we are talking about. We should be careful, not cavalier.
$50 for an out-of-state birth certificate is a lot of money for a lot of people, and those fees are only going to go up. It could very be that the only time this ID is used is to vote, so this a poll tax.
Allowing someone to vouch for your identity with an affidavit is good enough and imposes no costs. Unless the point of this exercise is really to prevent people from voting due to expense, then an affidavit serves the purpose.

Sent by Todd Dugdale | 6:42 PM ET | 01-09-2008

It is ironic that the Federal Law that created Voter ID Legislation is called the Help America Vote Act of 2002. HAVA requires Voter ID at Polls for first time voters who registered by mail. It seems that some states have altered it to be the Hinder America to Vote Act.

I live in Ohio where one of the acceptable IDs is the Military ID (with current address). I assume that no one in the state legislature looked to see that Military IDs don't have addresses on them. I find it strange that those who protect our right to vote cannot do so with their Military ID.

Sent by Jim Allison | 7:46 PM ET | 01-09-2008

The laws requiring voter identification shift the focus from the larger areas of possible fraud to something that can only result in fewer americans voting.

In addition to the difficulty some lower income or city dwelling citizens face in obtaining identification, there is a larger question of anonymity in voting. One of our core rights should be the ability to vote our conscience without fear of repercussion from a spouse, boss, government, or other authority figure. If you are able to hold a provisional vote until someone provides ID, votes can be tracked back to individuals.

Whether or not we should all be required to carry identification at all times is a separate question from the one being debated.

This is a red herring that calls into question whether everyone should be allowed to vote regardless of race, creed, education level, and socio-economic background. Fraud in the voting at the individual level is not the problem, it is that we have created a larger machine that makes it impossible to have a truly democratic process. Technology gives us the ability to count votes at the most granular level. If we really want to do away with corruption and fraud, we should be printing ballet results to eliminate the cyberfraud opportunities. The electoral college is an antiquated system that once served a useful purpose and now simply prevents each US citizen's vote to count.

Our tendency is not to protect the vote of the lower levels of our society because we want the smarter people voting. However, science shows us that our collective vote is always better than the smartest individual vote.

We spend a tremendous amount of time and energy debating over issues that have very little impact in addressing the real problems.

Sent by Kathy Mac | 7:53 PM ET | 01-09-2008

The $50 (for a copy of your BC) is NOT a poll tax! You still have the BC, you can use it over and over again. (My daughter needed one to enroll in school.)
As for the photo ID, we are talking about your state driver's license. All states offer a photo ID (in place of a driver's license) for those who don't (or can't) drive. My wife has one. $30 for 6 years, what a bargain!

KS used to have a 30 residency requirement before voting (not sure if they still do).
But, states like NH, have "same day" voting. So, without these kind of safeguards, anyone could use your name to vote in NH. If you tried to vote (later), YOU would be accused of trying to vote twice.
Once, a poll worker had marked me down as voting (earlier) because someone else had signed in MY place. (Some poll workers are not all that bright.)
As Chester said earlier,"the problem is the lack of a standard". Each state has the leeway to create their own standard. But, poll workers DO NOT!

In 2004, some poll workers were vouching for people they "knew", some required residency proof (utility bill), some wanted to se a photo ID. All at the same polling place! That is wrong!

Sent by Harold | 9:38 PM ET | 01-09-2008

I had a situation where I would not have been allowed to vote under these proposed rules. I moved into a new apartment in November. There was no way a new ID would have arrived in the mail in time for me to vote. I would merely have had a receipt for the ID without a photo. I had no utility bills yet, and my rent receipt did not have an address on it. A poll observer certified me to vote that day. Should we deny the right to vote for anyone who moves in November or should we instead require them to vote falsely and illegally in their old precinct, even if it is in another state?

Sent by Todd Dugdale | 9:57 PM ET | 01-09-2008

Nina, fraud that occurs "in more systematic ways, through ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation" is "election fraud," not voter fraud. Please make that distinction next time.

Part of the Voter ID gambit is to deliberately conflate the two, the way Saddam and Osama were systematically put together in speeches to get the public connect Saddam to 9/11 without the White House saying so expressly. The idea behind Voter ID being to use the "voter fraud" meme to suggest massive election fraud where there is none, hyping a nonexistent problem to create a constituency for a legislative solution in search of a problem: just the sort of lawmaking the GOP normally screams about.

Even non-existent cases of voter fraud (they have yet to produce one in Indiana) are enough to require a statewide remedy for "voter-impersonation fraud," but apparently disenfranchising "34 voters out of 160,000 isn't that many" to ensure the "integrity of the voting process."

As an election protection worker in 2006, I took a complaint from a woman who'd driven a friend from assisted living to the polls. Her friend was challenged for an ID (in a state that doesn't even require them). Not having one - she no longer drives, etc. - she got intimidated and went home without voting even provisionally. And yes, she was African-American, elderly, and a Democrat.

There are two older, more descriptive terms for laws with that effect: poll tax and Jim Crow.

Sent by Tom | 10:56 PM ET | 01-09-2008

This is America and voting is one of our rights. I have never carried any ID when I have gone to vote in Michigan and don't intend to. I just sign the back of the slip. This is just one step closer to the tattoo on the forehead, imo.

Sent by Marilyn | 11:14 PM ET | 01-09-2008

Nina Totenberg is a discredit partisan hack. I suggest she do research on the voter fraud -- including non-citizens going to their ICE office with an I JUST VOTED sticker, or the fact that thousands of dead people voted in Wisconsin in 2004, or that one house in Seattle had 34 registered voters who actually voted -- one problem was it was a vacant lot with no house. Over 80% of the US population has shown overwhelming support for photo ID at the polls. Isn't that a mandate?

Sent by Karen | 12:04 PM ET | 01-10-2008

The idea that requiring a birth certificate "authenticates" a voter in order to prevent fraud is wobbly. It does not prove the individual is a legal resident of the state and, as such, is an unwarranted burden that can be reasonably compared to "literacy tests" and "poll taxes".

The eligible to vote electorate in this country turn out at less than fifty-percent. A hypothetical that of this minority a majority are seeking to vote twice seems incongruous and, as aptly mentioned above, election fraud occurs in the counting of valid votes rather any attempt to cast the vote.

But the court's conservatives, counting Justice Kennedy among them on this one, might defend the Indiana regulation from this facial challenge and wait for an as-applied case to come them. That might result in another 5-4 decision and leave us to hold another election in controversy while the State and Federal judiciary sort things out.

Hopefully, that process will be performed with the same dispatch as the last one. This time with some sort of legal precedent as the result.

Sent by Chester Morrison | 1:52 PM ET | 01-10-2008

It's not an undue burden to show ID when fying, or picking up packages at the post office, or buying beer if you look young, or getting into a bar, or going to the gym, etc... etc... It's only an undue burden to people who are stupid, not allowed to vote because of felonies, or not citizens.

Sent by Allen | 2:59 PM ET | 01-10-2008

The 2004 Wisconsin case was reversed on appeal and literally amounted to nothing. Check out the Brennan Center for Justice for some good info on the photo ID controversy, including the Wisconsin case. Not enough info in the Seattle reference to test its veracity.

Sent by Chester | 3:11 PM ET | 01-10-2008

The story is wrong. Try for balance. Nor have you covered the controversy over the fact that one of the examples in the case may have registered twice. This story is appallingly one sided and bad. If the story were that lopsided the Supremes wouldn't have heard the case.

Sent by Nick | 4:36 PM ET | 01-10-2008

The undue burden rests on the requirements to obtain a photo ID in the absence of a standard from State to State. Some states may have a relaxed standard, some states may have a sticter standard. Some states may have a standard that rises to the level of undue burden in the process required to obtain the state recognized ID. Where money and time are concerned the arguments are endless for those with few resources (See the SCOTUSblog).

If each State is allowed to establish its own standard, there undoubtedly will be continuing challenges. One solution as mentioned in a few places above is to issue the photo ID when the voter registers in the State, even here there are potential problems on a State to State basis in how the State may authenticate the individual.

The Federal Courts are in a constant state of tension between the rights of the States as they apply to the Constitution and individual protections. Although they are no prohibitions against the Photo ID per se in the Constitution, there is an argument under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The Supreme Court can deal with the photo ID issue by tinkering with each State's regulation, issue an opinion with a set standard which all states must follow, or wait for further developments by either declaring a lack of standing for the petitioners or refuse to consider the regulation until a real problem arises.

I doubt the Court will declare photo ID regulation unconstitutional, but I would expect it to issue clear guidance to the lower courts as soon as possible.

Sent by Chester | 4:43 PM ET | 01-10-2008

It is a diversion instead of a real problem. Unfortunately, it is now in the court and if the Supreme Court upholds it, it will be more difficult to overthrow. The bigger problem is electronic voter machines which do not work, overtabulation errors and machines too easy to hack. In Tarrant County, Texas during the 2006 Primary there was an over 100,000 overtabulation error when the votes were tabulated. Many candidates noted discrepancies but declined to pay the fee required for a recount. The election law does not allow citizens or election officials noting discrepancies to call for a recount. Unfortunately with electronic voting machines with no paper trail, recounts are hidden behind a screen of computer code out of the sight of the designated observers and candidates and citizens.

Sent by Faith Chatham | 5:29 PM ET | 01-10-2008

I don't get it. Why the concern over a, by all accounts, non-existant "problem" when a real problem concerning election fraud exists.

Sent by karen | 11:16 PM ET | 01-10-2008

I think everyone makes a valid point. Based on what I've read so far, fortunately the People of the United States are more concerned with the practicality of voter ID, as opposed to partisan politics.

Let me just add this - one attorney in this case is trying to make a point that Indiana must prove there is a problem before passing a law to address it. That's a dumb argument. You lock the doors to your house BEFORE you get robbed, not after. You install a fire extinquisher BEFORE the house burns down, not after. It may seem strange, but even government is allowed to be pro-active.

One thing is for certain, we must have a means to allow only eligible voters to vote and keep fraudsters out. The best way to do that at the moment is with photo ID.

With that said, the state should provide photo ID without charge for anyone who needs it. Proof of citizenship would then be the next issue, which can be resolved either by presenting a birth certificate or a copy of last year's income tax return.

Sent by Christopher Tracy | 6:32 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I am curious as to why a State ID is not enough. I think creating a seperate ID specifically for voting, instead of using your State issued ID. First, I think that the extra burden on the DMV system is just a waste of taxpayer money and time. Second, to get your state ID you need to present prrof of citizenship. People do not need an drivers license to have an official ID. You can ask any DMV to issue you one at anytime. I have had a state ID since the age 12. Asking people to do it a second time is redundant. It seems to favor people that have the free time to waste on something like this. It just seems fishy to create a redundant system like this.

Sent by Kat O | 11:34 PM ET | 01-13-2008

This "voter ID is difficult to obtain" argument is total BS. I voted FOR bush in FLORIDA in 2000. I was makin $0.75 over MINIMUM WAGE at the time. I had to write letters to my bosses and do with all sorts of inconvienes to just GET THE DAY OFF. I was working at a call center for a major Miami newspaper at the time. The call center had 200+ employees of which perhaps 5 voted. The grand majority COMPLAINED bitterly over the final result but, save for the 5 or so people who actually did vote, NONE did ANYTHING about it except BI***! I think APATHY among voters is a WAY bigger problem than people who DONT WANT TO DO THE SONG AND DANCE required to get off work/get an ID/ make it too the polls etc. That affects WAY more than 34 people out of 160,000 who find it *DIFFICULT* to vote. That begs the question "Are we going to legislate APATHY?". Dont scoff... I currently live in Chile, where if you are REGISTERED, its a CRIME NOT TO vote!

Sent by -Expat American in Chile | 12:48 PM ET | 01-24-2008