A key consideration cited in reports on the decision was that Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

There apparently was no argument that obtaining the available ID was an "excessive burden."

Other states that have attempted to impose similar photo ID requirements don't necessarily provide a free (or even low cost) alternative ID form, some don't provide for contesting a disallowed vote, and some have proposed rather complex requirements for what might meet their laws.

The court left the door open for additional challenges if/when anyone can make a valid claim of difficulty in voting as a result of a similar law. Proposed ID laws in several states appear "more suspect" than the one that's permitted by this decision.

This decision, from what has been reported, doesn't seem too far out of line, but I'll try to read the whole thing (especially the dissenting opinions) before reaching final conclusions.

John