The link to this article reveals how the DOJ and the media is getting the analysis on photo ID wrong and the Voting Section is failing to faithfully enforce the laws of the land.  If the burden is minimal and not an increase in usual voting burdens for all voters, how can the voter ID law have an disparate impact on minority groups.  Of course, the analysis should focus on the law and not on ideological flame-throwers alleging Jim Crow, lynching, and now apparently electoral genocide.  

“This is electoral genocide,” state Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian said, “disenfranchising huge groups of people who don’t have the money to go get an ID card.”

Here is how the Supreme Court in Crawford dealt with the issue of minimal burden and neglible impact on voters and whether the law was discriminatory toward different voters:

The different ways in which Indiana’s law affects different voters are no more than different impacts of the single burden that the law uniformly imposes on all voters: To vote in person, everyone must have and present a photo identification that can be obtained for free. This is a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation. The law’s universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden