Judith, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "No." This action you question does not qualify as a poll tax. I have supplied a link to a 2008 Supreme Court opinion on Indiana voter ID law (below). Please note the assenting op (page 25) and the dissenting op of Justice Souter (page 32).

I must say BOTH these men make valid arguments for and against Indiana's voter ID law. Frankly, I can see why a majority court vote was needed to move forward on this. (One thing: The other courts (page 2) writings make good reading too-if you have the time.)

See: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf (Note: PDF p. 23 & p. 32)

Excerpt: (Justice Scalia assenting)

In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it.21 In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge ,Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F. Supp. 2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper. But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the
statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral
process.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9.

Furthermore, in the above opinion: The Federal Voter Rights Act 1965 has been "enhanced" by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993:

Election Modernization

Two recently enacted federal statutes have made it necessary for States to reexamine their election procedures. Both contain provisions consistent with a State's choice to use government-issued photo identification as arelevant source of information concerning a citizen's eligibility to vote. In the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA),107 Stat. 77, 42 . S. C. §1973gg et seq., Congress established procedures that would both increase the number of registered voters and protect the integrity of the electoral process. §1973gg. The statute requires state motor vehicle driver's license applications to serve as voter registration applications. §1973gg–3. While that requirement hasincreased the number of registered voters, the statute also contains a provision restricting States' ability to remove names from the lists of registered voters. §1973gg–6(a)(3). These protections have been partly responsible for inflated lists of registered voters.

In HAVA, Congress required every State to create and

9 Cite as: 553 U. S. ___— (2008) maintain a computerized statewide list of all registered voters. 42 U. S. C. §15483(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V). HAVA also requires the States to verify voter information contained in a voter registration application and specifies either an "applicant’s driver’s license number" or "the last 4 digits of the applicant’s social security number" as acceptable verifications. §15483(a)(5)(A)(i). If an indi-vidual has neither number, the State is required toassign the applicant a voter identification number. §15483(a)(5)(A)(ii).
In HAVA also imposes new identification requirements for individuals registering to vote for the first time who submit their applications by mail. If the voter is casting his ballot in person, he must present local election officials with written identification, which may be either "a current and valid photo identification" or another form of documentation such as a bank statement or paycheck. §15483(b)(2)(A). If the voter is voting by mail, he must include a copy of the identification with his ballot.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf (Page 11-12)

You are quoting an extremely partisan right wing court. Lets try to remember the Republicans have been following the philosophy and practices of conservative guru Paul Weyrich, who back in 1980 mocked the idea of democracy and good government as “goo-goo syndrome,” and bluntly stated: “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down,” for years now.

Keeping the voting populace down — among target groups, of course (African-Americans, students, Native Americans, Hispanics, the poor, the young, the elderly) — has been core Republican strategy throughout the Rove-Bush era, from the bogus ex-felon purges of voting rolls in 2000 that disenfranchised thousands of mostly African-Americans in the South and gave Florida to George W. Bush, to a dizzying array of dirty tricks in 2004 (check out “Fooled Again” by Mark Crispin Miller or the documentaries “Uncounted” and the just-completed “Stealing America Vote by Vote”).

These new anti-voter laws or "anti-faud" laws are just a continuation of the policies above. Simply suggest to a Republican that voting should be a legal requirement of all citizens and see how they react. One would think that in a democracy everyone would be in favor of 100% or near 100% participation but that is not the case where the Republicans are concerned. They only want participation from their side and their side ONLY, as is clearly seen from their representatives in Congress who refuse to work in any way with representatives from the other side of the aisle. When they get a majority they call it a mandate, when the other side gets a majority they set record numbers of filibusters and whine about not getting their amendments through. Mandates don't count for the opposing side.

I fully agree with your points! I understand and am deeply offended that republicans take license to use "neutral" law as a tool for the republican party.

In a post above, I did read and referenced Justice Souter's dissent. (I did not quote him above due to lengthiness.) For me, on this case per se, the conservatives made a forceful evidential argument, and by having the votes to succeed...prevailed (for now.) :)

I agree with you.

In my state the government mails you a laminated voter id card. It's much nicer and contains much more information than a drivers license. So why have we required the people to present a drivers license in ADDITION to this card?

Tell me why should a college student who doesn't own a car or a elderly person living in a home who has voted for decades and served in the military for decades but cannot drive anymore, who cannot get to the DMV on their own, now be required to get to the DMV to get an additional ID to vote? It may be easy for you, in fact you need one anyway because you have a car and use it everyday so it doesn't matter to you at all, but for them it is a very big deal. They have to miss classes, and/or pay someone to take them to the DMV, some of these elderly homes do not allow them leave at all without nurse's or doctors. They have to vote in the lobbies.

So bright guy, it's swell to be white, middle class, Republican and have a car that you use everyday, but when you find yourself on a list that says you're not allowed to vote because you're an illegitimate Democrat, like the thousands of Dems that found themselves unable to vote in Florida and Ohio in 2002 and 2006 maybe you'd change your mind. Please understand, this is more about restricting Americans rights than preventing crime.

As to the above, the real fraud has been ELECTION fraud NOT VOTER FRAUD, voter machine fraud, miscounts and voter officials misreporting votes, NOT people pretending to be someone they're not and that's a fact. Everyone know's it and openly admit it. So why do our politicians (the Republicans) absolutely REFUSE to address those ELECTION FRAUD issues in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM?

As always it's blame the working man but refuse to take any responsibility for their own serious malfeasance AT ALL. They refuse to fix the real problem that they have caused.

After reading the 2008 Supreme Court decison (linked above), I am of two hearts on this subject. It appears (clear) to me that something practical has to occur to move forward on this matter of voting.

IMO, the Supreme Court (though voting a conservative majority) makes a valid point, the 1965 voter rights act must be reconciled with the 1993 national voting act. There are Congressional requirements that ID and computerized systems be instituted and maintained by states.

Therefore, in my opinion, as long as the above is adjudicated for its "spirit' by the Courts, perhaps no violation of civil rights are occurring. Poor, elderly, people who have religious issues with photos, and disabled people must make a least effort to use the "franchise".

Again, these states already have voter ID cards. How many forms of ID are they going to require? Why are they only questioning the status of Dems? Further why are they addressing a problem that has an error of .0005%? That isn't a problem!

However ELECTION FRAUD is a serious problem! It has caused the wrong results of several elections now. Corporations refusing to release their fraudulent codes. Election officials miscounting and simply misreporting numbers and not being held accountable! These are the REAL problems! Our politicians REFUSE to enact REAL REFORM laws and instead distract us with B.S. laws that address false fraud of .0005% Give me a break! An error of .0005% is fantastic in any arena and I and anyone will always accept that error anytime and anywhere!