[contemplator]

What is the (alleged) basis for this ruling?

Not sure which ones the 9th circuit accepted in their decision, but the arguments that I have seen revolve around the idea that requiring id's constitue a 'poll tax' in that people must pay to get the I.D.'s and/or they have to pay to get the documentation proving their citizenship (birth certificates, passports etc...)

Other claims are that it violates the 1964 Civil rights act and the 1965 Voting rights act.

[Jim Noble]

Yes, my first and only voter ID (nonsecure, no photo, paper) was issued in 1971 by Nassau County, NY on my 21st birthday.

For free.

I think these documents, whatever they are, have to be free.

[Tarantulas]

Supposedly the 9th Circus overturned the law without comment, but the lawyer's complaint was that it violated the 24th Amendment which prohibits the poll tax. Since a photo ID costs money, he's calling that a poll tax. But the law states that if you don't have a photo ID with your home address on it, you can bring in two other forms of ID with your name and address and no picture and still vote. So your electric bill and your voter ID card would be sufficient.

"Every qualified elector, before receiving his ballot, shall announce his name and place of residence in a clear, audible tone of voice to the election official in charge of the signature roster or present his name and residence in writing and shall present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector."

Arizona Revised Statute 16-579.

The Secretary of State immediately told the Attorney General to appeal the ruling. But Terry Goddard will probably drag his feet, as another member said.