WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that all states can demand photo identification papers from voters, in a decision which could roil the US presidential race six months before the elections.
In a country which has no national identity card, the judges voted by six votes to three to uphold an appeals court decision backing an Indiana law, which demands voters provide proper ID such as a passport or driving license.
The decision, which ruled requiring photo identification did not violate Americans' constitutional rights, could lead to many being turned away at the polling booth, critics say.
"The evidence in the record is not sufficient to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute," the court said in the split decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens.
But he did not rule out that the court could re-examine the case if it turns out that someone is barred from voting in a case which is likely to become a political hot potato.
In Indiana, some 43,000 out of the 4.7 million residents of voting age, primarily elderly people, have neither a passport nor a driving license. Those living in poorer districts or minorities also often fall into the category.
Such voters are traditionally Democratic Party supporters, so the decision is likely to spur a huge debate, just months from the November elections.
"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters," Stevens wrote.
"Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record-keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.
"While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear."
Traditionally electoral officers have checked identities by verifying that the voter's signature corresponds to the one given when they registered to vote.
But as part of a modernization drive put in place after the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections, more than half of the states have brought in laws ordering voters to show ID at voting stations, even if just a library card.
The Indiana law, adopted in 2005, is one of the country's strictest. But critics say it is too restrictive as no one has ever been prosecuted in the state for trying to vote in someone else's place.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the law was "eminently reasonable" as the "burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe."
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice David Souter said Indiana's law was unconstitutional as it "threatens to impose non-trivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state's citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting."
The case had been brought by the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, which argued that the risk of fraud came more from inflated voters lists and irregularities via postal votes, two issues not addressed by the law.
"This decision is a body blow to what America stands for -- equal access to the polls," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
"The Indiana law purports to solve a problem that does not exist and it could very well disenfranchise many, many citizens."
American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Steven Shapiro said the group was "very disappointed in today's decision."
"We should be seeking ways to encourage more people to vote, not inventing excuses to deny citizens their constitutional voting rights," Shapiro said.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy accused the administration of President George W. Bush of using "the specter of purported 'voter fraud' for political advantage.
"They do so at the expense of vulnerable communities and have excluded millions of elderly, low-income, disabled, and minority voters, even though in-person voter fraud has been proven time and time again to be a myth."
Leahy added that "denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate, or has no access to a vehicle, goes against America's better values."
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
