In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most eagerly awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law, probably the strictest in the country, imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification (iht).

According to the Court, the state has a “valid interest” in requiring voting citizens to produce a photograph identification card in order to improve election procedures and deter voter fraud. The main challenge to the law was that it inherently discriminated against the old, poor, or minorities, because they are less likely to have an acceptable photo ID. There were also partisan complaints made by those against the law claiming that the requirement of photo ID discriminates against the Democratic constituency — the old, poor, and minority demographics.

Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, found that the Democrats and civil rights groups who opposed the law, seeking the Court to declare it unconstitutional on its face, failed to meet meet the burden required for a “facial challenge” to win in open court. Furthermore, responding to the partisan claim, Stevens said that the justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.” Simply put, the plaintiff in this case was unable to show that his or her rights had been violated.

Although I would like every advantage possible for the Democrats come this November, I find the ruling by the Court just and reasonable. The requirement of a photo ID is not a undue burden, by any account. Identification on demand is not a new concept or restricted to just voting. Photo IDs are required for anyone who wants to buy tobacco, alcohol, or get into a Casino. I haven’t heard the people complaining en masse about their inability to buy some booze or gamble their money away; why, then, is it claimed to be an undue burden upon a citizen to produce a photo ID at the voting booth?

Voter fraud and election stumbles do nothing but frustrate the process; reasonable measures taken to keep the process as kink-free as possible should always be welcome, granted they are justifiable. Efficient voting procedures and the deterrence to voter fraud is indeed justifiable and passes the undue burden test. As Scalia, and two other justices said, “the law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” Photo IDs are cheap and easily obtained (granted your are an American citizen) and should be required of all voting citizens at the booth.