MSU students Crystal Jackson and Tianna Walker say it's not inconvenient to show their driver's licenses or other photo ID when voting.
But others might not vote if they have to show ID, they say.
"People are narrow-minded and will wonder why they have to show their ID," said Jackson, a humanities and pre-law senior who went home to Novi to vote on Nov. 7. "It shouldn't matter if they show their ID or not. The main purpose should be to get people to vote."
The Michigan Supreme Court will decide how far government can go to make voters prove their identities after hearing arguments on Monday regarding a law that soon will go into effect.
Walker, an interdisciplinary studies in social science and health studies senior who went home to Redford to vote, said showing a photo ID would most likely keep people from voting, but it should be required to keep elections honest.
"Considering there are a large number of noncitizens in our country, a lot of people are not honest and would use other people's IDs," she said. "Along with their voter identification card, I don't think it would be that much of a problem."
The Michigan House requested in February that the court decide if it's constitutional to enact a law that would require voters to show photo identification at polls or sign a document affirming their identity. The state law requiring the extra step in the voting process passed in 2005 and is scheduled to go into effect in January.
Assistant attorney generals argued both sides of the case on Monday, and the court has until the end of its term in July to give a ruling.
Michigan law does not require voters to show photo IDs at the polls except in certain cases, such as voters who register by mail.
A similar law was passed in 1996 but was deemed unconstitutional by former Democratic Attorney General Frank Kelley in 1997. Kelley said the law violated the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, which protects U.S. citizens' right to vote.
Supporters of the law argue that photo identification is not hard for most voters to bring to the polls and that the added step would cut down on fraud, said Rusty Hills, spokesman for the attorney general's office.
"The argument in favor is that photo ID is so common — photo ID has become a fact of life in America in the 21st century," he said. "They will argue that there is a fail-safe in the system, where you can go to a voting place and sign an affidavit swearing you are and who you are."
If illegitimate voters show up to vote, their ballots might decrease legitimacy of votes cast by those who meet all voting requirements, Hills said. It's similar to a minor buying alcohol with a fake ID, he said.
But opponents of the law argue there isn't a problem with illegitimate voters, Hills said.
"The argument against photo ID is that the state in general ought to encourage more participation and voting rather than set up barriers that could decrease participation and decrease voting," he said. "There are already a variety of restrictions of when you can vote, where you can vote or who can vote."
Other hindrances for voters include a law introduced by former state Sen. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, which requires the voter's driver's license address to match the address on his or her voter registration card. The law was enacted in 2000.
That requires MSU students who want to vote to request an absentee ballot from their hometown or change their drivers licenses to match their East Lansing addresses.
Efforts to challenge the identity of voters are intended to deter voters from going to vote, said Mark Kornbluh, an MSU professor and chairman in the history department.
"These things are always done to discourage segments they think will vote for the opposition," he said. "Anything that requires added steps on the part of the voter discourages participation."
