Indiana's Voter ID Law Will Answer Some Questions in November

LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- Voter fraud and voter identification has been viewed through polarizing political lenses in recent years.

Conservatives complain that voter fraud is widespread and creating new identification standards was necessary to curb the problem. Liberals see new voter identification laws as voter suppression meant to keep the poor and minorities out of the voting place.

Indiana's new voter identification law was put to the test in May and will be highly scrutinize in November to see if the claims by either conservatives or liberals are true. A new challenge by the League of Women Voters in Indiana in June has brought the controversial law back into the spotlight.

The league's Indiana president Joanne Evers told the Associated Press that the challenge is based on the section of the state constitution requiring changes in voting eligibility to be enacted only by amending the constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in April in favor of the Indiana law, stating it doesn't impose a severe burden on voter.

The Indiana law, considered one of the strictest in the country, states that voters must show a government-issued ID before casting a ballot. Those photo IDs must meet four criteria. The IDs must display the voter's photo, name that conforms to the name on the person's voter registration record, display an expiration date that's either current or expired sometime after the date of the last general election, and be issued by the State of Indiana or U.S. government.

Some student identifications created some confusion because the state accepted identifications state-run institutions, but not from private schools. Thus, a student with an Indiana University ID could be used if it met the other criteria, but not a student with an ID from Notre Dame.

But the voter identification law is a political oil spill waiting to happen. First, the Voting Rights Act and other laws guarantee the right the vote, thus identification should be viewed as a means to participate in the process and making sure the voter is in the proper jurisdiction. The Indiana voter ID law, because it denies that right if the voter doesn't have specific government issued identification, leans toward voter suppression.

The Associated Press reported during Indiana's May Democratic primary that 12 nuns were blocked from voting in South Bend because the nuns, all in their 80's and 90's, lacked the photo identifications required by the new law.

Indiana Secretary of State spokesman Bethany Derringer told CNN at the time that there were only scant complaints of voter disenfranchisement during the primary. Often, though, these incidences go underreported because voters who are turned away simply return home instead of filing a grievance.

State officials argued to the Supreme Court that voter turnout has increased two percent since the law took effect, according to CNN. Democrats argued that some 400,000 Indiana voters did not have required identification and may stay home during elections.

The law seems to hamper the "occasional" voter, who may decide only in the days leading up to the election to take part. While the new state law has a provision to give free state-issued identifications for those who don't have driver's licenses, it does not address the issue of the inconvenience and difficulties some may have in waiting in long lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

In the May primary incident with the nuns, one spokesman said many were in wheelchairs and it make it difficult for them to get out on a regular basis. Those in rural areas without vehicles may find getting a state-issued ID troublesome, even though they are eligible voters, Democrats complain.

It is clear that as well meaning as the law is, more must be done to keep the act from being a burden to voters. There are ways, like possibly developing some sort of identification online or state officials traveling to residents' homes on request to create the identifications. The state must be as creative as possible to make sure the law encourages and not discourages voters from casting their ballots. The current law does more to discourage.