The Right To Vote Yet Further Limited In Our Former Democracy

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used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver’s license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.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.

The incident is at the heart of the highly anticipated case, which challenges the constitutionality of the Indiana law and, according to Daniel P. Tokaji, a professor of law at Ohio State University, is “the most important case involving the mechanics of election administration in decades.”

The case goes before the Supreme Court just as the 2008 presidential primaries are beginning. The court will probably deliver its decision by late June, in time to affect the November elections.

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.

Opponents of the law, most of them Democrats, view voter identification requirements as a deterrent that disproportionately affects poor, minority and elderly voters, who more often than other people lack the required forms of identification and who also tend to back Democrats. And unlike supporters of the law, they say they have evidence to bolster their case and show that it has harmed Indiana voters.

[more -- for those registered with the Times]

Well, is your state anti-democratic and supports disenfranschisement? Look here.