[............]
It was apparent from the outset that the Court?s more conservative members were most interested in (a) finding that no one had a right to bring the constitutional challenge, at least at this stage, (b) putting off a challenge until the law has actually been enforced or at least until just before election day, or (c) salvaging as much as possible of the Indiana photo ID requirement on the theory that voter fraud is a problem that states have a legitimate right to try to solve. There was some hand-wringing, particularly by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., over how difficult it is for a judge to ?draw the line? on when a voting requirement would or would not pass a constitutional test.
And it was equally apparent that the Court?s more liberal members were most keen about (a) pushing the Court to decide the case now, (b) doing so in a way that at least narrows the impact of the Indiana law on poor or minority voters, and (c) applying some constitutional pressure on the states to regulate voter fraud ? if they do so at all ? with more specifically targeted statutes....
[..............]
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/commentary-the-partisan-elephant-unnoticed-in-the-room/#more-6407
