If all this voter fraud was going on, why-oh-why weren't they able to give a single example of voter impersonation fraud for the SCOTUS arguments?
Was this just terribly poor preparation for the case and a large helping of luck that the case was won?
Stevens cited some in the opinion. Washington State, New York City, etc. There was evidence, and no it was not a lack of preparation. The problem with citing more is that if voter impersonation fraud is going on, virtually the only way to catch it is if the real voter shows up at exactly the same time as the impersonator (not going to happen for fraudulent registrations, out of state or dead voters) or the poll worker actually knows the real voter. The Dems have cited the paucity of prosecutions as proof that this is a partisan conspiracy; however, logically there would not be much direct proof (as opposed to statistical or anecdotal, such as more votes than living registered voters, votes cast for dead folks, etc.).
This is why the level of scrutiny involved is so important. In a normal case, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that the state’s regulatory interest is not reasonably calculated to protect a legitimate state interest in a non-burdensome manner. In the case of a protected class or invidious discriminatory effect (speaking non-precisely, if any other counsel are grading me), the burden is on the state to show that there is a legitimate or compelling state interest and that the burden is narrowly tailored and balanced aganst the benefit. In this case, 6 justices found the burden to be on the plaintiffs, who could not show much in the way of disenfranchised voters.
It raises the burden for future voter ID challenges. Watch for the Arizona law to be challenged again “as-applied” with a best-case plainitff after this election. They might make it through the 9th Circus on it, though the 9th did follow the SCOTUS on its previously challenge to that law.