Thanks for the article BMD. I though the reasoning interesting.

The opinion stated "Those officials could use information to require voters to cast provisional ballots rather than regular ones. They could also allow partisan poll workers to challenge people on the lists. Given Democratic success in registering new voters this year, those actions would probably affect that party’s supporters disproportionately."

I think this reasoning is flawed as clearly both parties are affected and the better approach is to ensure the integrity of the voting process.

The court said it expressed “no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented.” But it said that Congress probably had not intended to allow private litigants like political parties to sue to enforce the part of the law concerning databases.

In other words, they don't care about fraud (they have no opinion) and punt due to the standing issue.

Clearly, the most importatnt thing is the integrity of the voting process. If there are questions they should be resolved which is in the best interests of all parties. I don't beleive that the integrity of the registration and voting porcess should EVER be poliitcized. It has according to the unsigned reasoning of the Supreme Court. Note...unsigned...perhaps fear among the justices? That would be terrible.