ÿDemocrats in Indiana have been clashing with the Supreme Court over voter identification laws, and the outcome may shape the future of election case decisions. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court indicated it did not see producing a government-issued identification, such as a driver’s license, as a burden on voters.

In 2005, Indiana Democrats, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the state’s statute on producing ID to vote and said it is too stringent and unconstitutional.

At the heart of this argument is the question of disenfranchisement of voters and whether voter fraud is a threat, said Kimberly Conger, assistant professor of political science. She said most states do not have voter ID laws, but there is “a lot of talk by people wanting to get those kinds of laws passed” to help curb the opportunity for voter fraud. Conger also said illegal immigrants and those who seek to cheat in elections are the main targets of voter ID laws, but many legitimate citizens get caught in-between those crosshairs.

“The idea is that ‘who is that really disenfranchising?’ It’s disenfranchising illegal immigrants, who aren’t legally allowed to vote anyway,” Conger said. “There is probably an issue in terms of disenfranchising homeless people. But it’s fairly rare for a homeless person to not even have a Social Security number.”

Conger said Democrats would say some groups of voters, such as the homeless, don’t have easy access to a driver’s license, but, for most voters, a form of identification is something they already have and can readily produce. A national identity card would solve these problems, she said, but there are those who would fear it.

“I think the issue a lot of people have is the government would have all this information about us, but they already do. So does Google and all sorts of big corporations that have your e-mail address,” Conger said. “I think it’s partially about who holds that identification.”

Narren Brown, graduate student in political science, said there are those who question whether producing identification actually limits voter fraud, but it is clear there are citizens who could be disenfranchised.

“There’s an argument out there that questions if it really does actively limit voter fraud,” Brown said. “If you are going to make it mandatory to have a state-issued ID, then you need to address the issue that you have elderly citizens who can’t get around and also address the issue that there are impoverished citizens who can’t afford a state ID.”

The issues of mandatory identification and voter identification are actually symptoms of a larger problem with illegal immigration in America, Conger said.

“This is part of an argument about national identity cards and part of an argument about illegal immigration,” she said. “It’s not really about voting.”

A national identity card, Conger said, is going to become a necessity in the future.

“I don’t see how it is possible for us to continue on much longer without it anyway,” she said. “All the basic information is already there anyway. We basically already have it.”

Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science, said that, although governments would control large amounts of personal information, a national identity card would do nothing to stop identity theft since “it all can be hacked anyway.”

“They are making it easier to steal identity,” Schmidt said.

Brown disagrees with the viability of a national identity card, as it opens up a whole raft of state rights issues.

“Politically, I don’t know how you’d sell it,” Brown said. “Solely based on the premise of states’ rights, I can see some states really complaining that they didn’t want to adopt a national ID because they were a sovereign state and they like their state ID just fine. And they have a state right to issue their own ID.”

On the other hand, all pertinent personal information would be in one place and voter identity fraud wouldn’t be a problem, said James Hutter, associate professor of political science.

“At least there would be a place on this card that says ‘birth certificate,’ check. ‘Social Security number,’ check,” Hutter said. “If everyone had a national card, then everyone would have ID.”