LANSING ? Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, among others, on Monday will argue to the Supreme Court that law passed last year mandating photo identification at the polls is unconstitutional, and lawmakers that passed the measure, facing heavy opposition, will continue to argue its constitutionality.

The review of the law comes after the Legislature asked for the court’s opinion (Re Advisory Opinion 130589) on the constitutionality of the 2005 statute.

Briefs from Granholm, former Attorney General Frank Kelley, the Democratic Caucus, AARP and others argue that the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Mike Cox, as requested by the high court, issued briefs both in support and against the law and the House of Representatives issued an argument maintaining its assertion that the law is valid and necessary to prevent election fraud.

In her brief to the court, Granholm said she agrees with Kelley’s opinion, issued on the matter when it came before courts in 1996, which stated that a law requiring vote i.d. is unconstitutional.

“If implemented, the requirements would infringe upon a paramount and fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. The requirements would have the unfortunate effect of disenfranchising those without government-approved photo identification cards, often the poorest of our citizens, along with the elderly, the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, and others who, though fully eligible, registered, and qualified to vote, lack state-approved identification and are unable to obtain one,” Granholm said in her argument.

The Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the AARP, in their joint brief, said the law would impose “multiple undue burdens” on an estimated 370,000 Michigan voters without photo identification.

However, the House of Representatives said, the “law does not even require one to obtain photo identification in order to vote” since a voter can sign an affidavit attesting to his or her lack of i.d. and then would be allowed to vote.

“The law protects the right to vote by preventing a citizen’s vote from being diluted by fraudulent voters, in exchange for the slight “burden” of identifying oneself through photo identification or signing an affidavit that the voter has no such photo identification,” the House of Representatives brief said.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com