The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to show photo identification at the polls, in a closely watched case with important ramifications for the 2008 elections.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Proponents of the Indiana law at issue in the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, said the state’s interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud outweighs whatever burden might be placed on a small number of people.

“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. “Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.”

The decision was quickly praised by Republicans, who had argued for years in favor of tougher voter ID laws, but denounced by Democrats, who said they feared it could disenfranchise poor and elderly voters.

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (PL 107-252), which set a minimum floor for state voter identification requirements. Voters who register by mail are required when appearing at the polling place to present written identification, including either photo identification or other forms of documentation such as a bank statement. That law left states free to enact stricter identification requirements as Indiana did.

The state enacted the law even though there was no record of any in-person voter fraud ever happening there.

The court on Monday signaled a willingness to uphold state laws aimed at preventing voter fraud, whether or not it has actually occurred.

Republicans have pushed to enact such statutes around the country since 2000, when the disputed Florida election kept the outcome of the presidential contest in doubt for months.

Florida also has a photo ID requirement, but allows voters to display different types, such as employee badges and student identifications. Georgia’s law on photo identification makes it easier than Indiana’s statute for voters who lack photo IDs to cast ballots anyway.

Democrats have focused on what they see as a need to curb intimidation of voters and combat efforts aimed at suppressing minority voting.

Opponents argued that the Indiana law unfairly burdens poor and elderly voters, who tend to vote Democratic but are least likely to have driver’s licenses, passports or other photo ID cards. But the challenge to the Indiana law was a “facial challenge” to its constitutionality that began right after it was enacted. The opponents of the law did not offer sufficient evidence, the court said, of unreasonable burdens placed on specific voters.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, hailed the high court’s ruling Monday.

“No right carries with it more responsibility – or potential for grave abuse – than the sacred right to vote,” Boehner said.

“Today’s ruling rightfully allows states to safeguard against such destructive abuse,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had a very different reaction.

“I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s opinion today rejecting a challenge to Indiana’s photo-ID law,” he said, calling such laws “roadblocks to democracy.”

Reid said the fight against such requirements would continue. “While today’s decision denies a facial challenge to the Indiana law, it allows future challenges in which there is more evidence of the harms caused by photo-ID laws,” he said. “As November approaches, Americans must remain vigilant to protect the right to vote in the face of this and other schemes to depress turnout.”

Stevens was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined.

Justice David H. Souter, dissenting for himself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the burden imposed on voters outweighed the state’s interests in preventing fraud. “The law imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old,” Souter wrote.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented separately, arguing the law is unconstitutional “because it imposes a disproportionate burden” on voters who lack valid photo identification.

The Justice Department sided with Indiana in the case, agreeing that the voter ID requirement is constitutional.

First posted April 28, 2008 10:52 a.m.