Senator Eliot Shapleigh - El Paso, Texas

The Supreme Court

AUSTIN – Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared strong voter ID requirements, saying they are good for honest elections, at least in theory, Texas Republicans say there's nothing to stop them from making it the law here in 2009.

Except, of course, Texas Democrats.

Both sides vowed Monday, after the court issued its long-awaited 6-3 decision upholding an Indiana law, that the fight over requiring photo identification at the polls will continue when the Legislature reconvenes next year.

Repeating the arguments that lawmakers passionately exchanged last year, when a voter ID measure barely fell short, Democrats said it would disenfranchise minority, elderly and indigent voters – despite the court's ruling otherwise. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican, hailed the ruling as "a victory for democracy in our nation" and vowed to pursue the bill again.

The high court left open the possibility of future challenges if lawyers can produce a voter who's been disenfranchised – which did not happen in the Indiana case – so opponents vowed to continue their protests.

"Just because the court's decision indicates that it's legal doesn't mean it's right," said Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston. He was recovering from a liver transplant last year but rested on a hospital bed outside the Senate chamber in case he was needed to vote against the bill.

"As long as my constituents are in danger of suffering the indignity of being disenfranchised by an unjust law, I will oppose that and all similar legislation," Mr. Gallegos said.

One leading proponent, though, argued that the justices' decision changed the equation.

"The other party has been saying we're trying to take away the voting rights of minorities and senior citizens, and the Supreme Court says that's bunk. That it's not true," said Rep. Leo Berman, a Tyler Republican who leads the House Elections Committee. "Next session, we will pass a Voter ID bill."

The court ruled Monday that Indiana's law passes constitutional muster mainly for two reasons: There's an alternative for people who can't get an ID or won't for personal reasons, and lawyers challenging the law didn't produce a single voter injured by it.

The majority said it was favoring the greater good served by honesty at the polls – unless a future case proves otherwise. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

Dissenting were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. They argued that the risk of disenfranchising voters was too great and that there appears to be no evidence that the law is needed to prevent fraud.

How much the court's ruling will affect the debate in Texas remains to be seen. Last year, the bill barely passed the House and had strong support in the Senate, though Democrats were able to use Senate rules to quash a vote.

"The constitutional question was not part of our strategy," said Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, a member of the House Elections Committee and a leader of the charge against the bill.

American Civil Liberties Union officials said they'll continue hammering the laws in court because while the court upheld the concept of voter ID laws, it left the door open for future challenges.

Voters are required to present photo ID or else vote provisionally in three states – Georgia, Florida and Indiana. Some form of ID is required in 18 more states, including Texas, which considers voter registration cards to be valid IDs.

A handful of other states request photo IDs but let voters cast ballots without them if they sign an affidavit.