The indiana legislature has passed a voter ID bill, and the governor
has said he will sign it (may have already done so, i'm not sure.)
I would be willing to serve as local counsel if any of you would be
interested in litigating this.
Alternatively amicus briefs would be welcome. Based on news reports,
which may be incomplete, the ICLU plans to sue on the basis that the
ID requirements amount to an illegal poll tax. While this is a good
policy argument, I'm not certain it will win in court.
I'm leaning more towards claims that a voter ID requirement is an
unwarranted search without probable cause, an interference with free
and open elections under the state constitution,
and a first amendment/equal protection issue.  
I can be reached at gtbear at gmail dot com.(Robbin Stewart).
In  Indiana, the only acceptable ID for voting would be a driver's
license or, for non-drivers, state-issued ID. The BMV is notoriously
inept and corrupt, compared to the county clerks who do a pretty good
job of maintaining voters lists.
When my wallet was stolen, possibly lost, it took me over a year, and
non-trivial legal fees, and pulling some strings, to get a new
driver's license. Their position was that I couldn't get a birth
certificate without an ID, and couldn't get an ID without a birth
certificate. My procedural and substantive rights were violated
several times along the way.
Many people in that situation would just do without.   
There were no known cases of voter fraud in the last election cycle.
In the previous cycle,
the Indianapolis Star did a big scare story about there being no
centralized list, which resulted in the state spending 6 million to
produce a centralized list, but all the Star was able to come up with
was 4 people who were registered in two counties, and could have voted
twice, but none of them did.

I am somewhat puzzled by Rick's comments about the importance of the
public perception of voter fraud, in the absense of a reality to back
up that perception.
If we knew that voter ID would prevent some eligible voters from
voting, diminishing the integrity of the election process, and that
the public perception was mistaken, would it be better to make the
system worse, or to try to educate the public?
I do tend to support Rick's proposals for universal registration, as
long as there is an opt out for those who don't want to take part. I
suspect that Republicans would not allow such a plan to pass in
Indiana out of a concern that doing so would benefit Democrats.
Whether universal registration would actually benefit Democrats, I
don't know.
I do not support Rick's advocacy of non-partisan election officials,
out of a concern that "non-partisan", like our university faculties,
often means Democrat in practice.
I do support measures to limit overt partisanship by election
officials. In Indiana, the election boards are appointed at the
direction of party chairs, and vote on party lines, resulting in bad
decisions, especially when it comes to third parties that don't get a
vote on the boards.
This probably would have been a better message if I'd kept it shorter.