(Now, who do I give this H/T to; I could go with Brian Fraley or Matt Lewis, but Katie Favazza and Sister Toldjah have them easily beat in the looks department, I haven’t linked to them in a while, and ST has the link to the decision from SCOTUSblog)
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-ID requirement 6-3. In a bit of an oddity, Mark Sherman, the AP reporter who wrote that piece, pointedly noted that the author of the opinion of the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, was a dissenter in Bush v Gore in 2000.
A quick, non-lawyer review of Justice Stevens’ opinion of the court and Justice Scalia’s concurrence reveals the idiocy of opposing photo ID from both the liberal and conservative perspective. While I prefer Scalia’s reasoning, Stevens’ broad repudiation of the arguments against a photo ID requirement, specifically including the “partisan”, “undue burden” on the poor, and “undue burden” on the elderly arguments, ought to have Wisconsin’s Democratic Party reconsidering their staunch opposition to a voter ID requirement. Then again, I’m not hopeful that the ‘Rats will give up their permanent advantage of vote fraud made easier by the lack of a voter ID requirement.
Revisions/extensions (11:38 am 4/29/2008) – I would be remiss if I didn’t point you in the direction of a lawyer’s take, specifically Rick Esenberg’s take. He notes that, because it is Justice Stevens’ opinion that is the controlling one instead of Justice Scalia’s, the door is open ever-so-slightly for future challenges to voter ID requirements.