On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for one of the biggest election law cases in years. This case might decide who becomes president of the United States in a close election, and shape the future of the country.

The Court will hear arguments in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. At issue in the case is Indiana’s new voter ID law.

This law requires people showing up on Election Day to show government-issued picture identification. It only applies to people voting in person. It does not apply to absentee ballots, so the elderly or disabled who cannot vote in person are unaffected. More than 99% of Indiana’s voting age population has acceptable ID. But if a person does not have a driver’s license, passport or other government ID, Indiana will allow them to get a state picture ID at their local DMV, free of charge.

Finally, if there is some unforeseen problem with casting a ballot on Election Day, a person can still cast a provisional ballot, and then has up to ten days to have that ballot authenticated and counted in the tally.

This law is designed to stop instances of dead people voting, living people voting twice, or fictitious persons using names like Daffy Duck or James Bond to vote. Yet some oppose this law, and it will now be decided by the Supreme Court.

There are two different ways to look at this case. The first is it burdens poor people and racial minorities more than others because they people are statistically less likely to have licenses or passports. The other way of looking at this case is that it’s about protecting our democratic system from being usurped by those perpetrating fraud to steal elections.

These come from two different ways of looking at voting rights. One outlook is that the system should do everything possible to facilitate people voting. This would mean making voter registration and casting votes as easy and fast as we can. The other is that voting is an important civic duty, with the emphasis on personal responsibility to properly register, go to their appointed locations, and fulfill whatever reasonable requirements are necessary to keep fraudulent votes from undermining the process.

In other words, the first approach focuses on getting people to vote, while the second focuses on making sure that only eligible voters have their votes counted.

This Indiana ID law is about civil rights. Every eligible adult citizen has a constitutional right to vote. Each citizen also has the right to not have their legitimate vote diluted by fraud. Continued...