The constitutionality of Indiana's voter id law is being argued before the US Supreme Court this morning. The two consolidated cases ( *Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita) are widely considered the most important election law cases since *Bush v. Gore. The decision in these cases potentially will have a huge impact on the November Presidential election because over 13 states have similar voter id laws on the books.

Here, in California, the Democrats has consistently fought against voter ID laws citing the same bogus concerns that the Democrats are currently arguing before the Supreme Court. Legislators from Orange County have proposed voter id bills the last three legislative sessions. The California Republican Lawyers Association and its members have encouraged these efforts. On each occassion, the Democrats have killed the legislation in committee. Assuming, that Indiana's voter id law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, we at the CRLA hope to bring this legislation to California. Preventing voter fraud is essential to the integrity of our election system.

Here is today's LATIMES article on the argument.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court, hearing arguments in a partisan election-law dispute, gave no hint today that it would strike down the nation's strictest voter identification law.

Democrats in Indiana challenged the law as unconstitutional, saying the Republican-backed measure would deter thousands of poor, minority and elderly voters from casting ballots. Registered voters in Indiana without a valid driver's license or passport would not have their ballots counted.

But the justices, with the conservatives leading the way, said the Democrats had failed to prove the measure would have much impact.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy characterized the law as posing only "a minor inconvenience" to a small percentage of voters. "You want us to invalidate a statute" on that basis? he asked Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith, representing the Indiana Democrats.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia said the Democrats' claim should be thrown out because it did not rely on instances of people who were actually prevented from voting.

Soon after the law was adopted in 2005, the Indiana Democrats, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued. They argued it would deter an untold percentage of people from voting even though they were legal residents of the state and had registered to vote.

Roberts and Scalia said that broad claim was not good enough. "You cannot point to a single instance of someone who was denied the right to vote" because of the new law, said Roberts, a native of northern Indiana.

Voting rights experts have called the Indiana case the most important election-law dispute in the high court since the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000. The partisan divide is nearly as sharp. Republicans have pressed for stricter voter ID laws, saying they are needed to prevent fraudulent votes from dead people or noncitizens.

The Democrats say this attack on voter fraud itself is a fraud, since the GOP has been unable to point to actual cases of ballots being cast by the dead. The easiest way to vote fraudulently is by mail, the Democrats say, yet the new laws do not affect people who cast their ballots through the mail.

Today's argument was the second time this week that a liberal challenge to a state's law has floundered in the high court. On Monday, the justices voiced skepticism when lawyers challenged Kentucky's use of lethal injection to carry out executions.

Kentucky has not executed anyone since 1998, and the challengers could not point to hard evidence that Kentucky's approach was flawed. Lawyers said it could cause an inmate to die in excruciating pain if anesthetic was not administered properly.

Today's voting rights case appeared to have a similar flaw, at least in the eyes of the conservative justices.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Indiana requirement was unfair and unconstitutional. People who are "indigent" are not likely to have a valid driver's license, and they will not be able to go to a county courthouse to get an ID card from the state. This has obvious political consequences, she added.

"The result will be skewed in favor of the opposite party [the Republicans] because people will not be able to vote," she said. "That's not hypothetical. It's real."

The court is likely to hand down a ruling in the spring. If it upholds Indiana's law, it should clear up legal doubts about other, less strict voter ID measures in several other states, including Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Florida.