LANSING – Arguments on whether Michigan should become the latest state to require photo identification to vote were held before the state Supreme Court Monday, with the seven justices questioning whether the ID requirement would become burdensome to the public.

The court will have to decide without any kind of factual history to guide them on the potential effect of PA 71, 2005. Both proponents and opponents of the law that would require voters to either display a driver?s license or state identification card (or sign an affidavit) could only speculate on what the effect could be. Proponents said there would be little impact, while proponents argued that as many as 350,000 voters without a driver?s license or state identity could be affected.

The law enacted last year attempts to restore a 1996 provision that was struck down by an opinion from then Attorney General Frank Kelley that ruled it would unconstitutionally interfere with a voter’s right to the franchise.

The House had requested an opinion by the court on the constitutionality of the 2005 law, and in doing so a dispute developed between House Speaker Craig DeRoche (R-Novi) and Cox on the power of attorney general opinions.

But that point was almost lost in the overall arguments on whether the provision was unduly burdensome. At the very end of the arguments, Justice Robert Young held up a copy of the constitution and asked Robinson if he could point to a single provision in it that granted the attorney general or any executive officer the power to not enforce the law.

Robinson said he did not have an answer for that, though Leffler’s brief did address the issue.

Robinson said if the law – which is opposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm along with the NAACP and numerous other groups – is held to be constitutional it could affect some 350,000 registered voters who have neither a driver’s license or state identification card.

Leffler said those voters would not be inconvenienced since the law allows them to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity.

But Robinson said the law automatically mandates that anyone who signs an affidavit “is subject” to a challenge.

Justice Maura Corrigan questioned if an election official would have to subject that ballot to challenge if the official actually knew the person who had signed the affidavit. Using Chief Justice Clifford Taylor as an example, she asked if she personally knew Taylor, would she still have to challenge his ballot; Robinson said she would.

Taylor joked that he found the hypothetical situation a little uncomfortable.

But to questions from Young, Robinson acknowledged that if the court held that the law did not require that a voter signing an affidavit to be challenged that his case lost some strength.

Leffler said the Legislature had enacted the law to ensure that voter fraud does not become a problem in the state. Asked by Justice Michael Cavanagh if there was any record of voter fraud in the state, Leffler said there was a “record of concern” about the sanctity of the ballot.

She also said it was not necessary for the Legislature to show any evidence of voter fraud to enact the provision.

Leffler also said there is no high level appellate decisions on similar laws in other states, although the U.S. Supreme Court decided against blocking the voter ID law in Arizona to see what the experience with the system would be.

Asked if court decisions do not make it plain that any interference in voting must meet a strict scrutiny test as to its necessity, Leffler said no. The law is commonsense and only duplicates “a regular event in everyday life” when people are expected to show their identification.

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