Georgia Democrats just can't take no for an answer.

Despite a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of requiring voters to produce state-issued picture IDs at the polls, the Democratic Party of Georgia has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law.

The Supreme Court ruled in an Indiana case on April 28 and the decision was cheered by Georgia Republicans because it seemed to protect the state's 2006 Photo ID Act.

Emmet Bondurant, attorney for the state Democratic Party, said that Indiana case actually opened the door to get the Georgia law declared unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court.

"Contrary to everything you've read in the newspapers, the Indiana cases is not fatal to the Georgia case — it helps us," said Bondurant who filed the lawsuit last Friday.

The Georgia law already was declared unconstitutional once by Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford but the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed the case last year because it said the plaintiff, Rosalind L. Lake of Atlanta, had no standing to sue. The court said Lake could have voted without the ID when she filed the lawsuit and as a result could not challenge the law's constitutionality.

In the Indiana case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state Democratic Party had standing to bring the lawsuit. Bondurant said that should help the new Georgia case clear the hurdle that derailed the last one. The new case will also be heard by Bedford.

Secretary State Karen Handel, a Republican, called the lawsuit "extraordinarily outrageous and frivolous."

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy in Rome threw out a federal suit challenging the law, praising the state's education efforts to let voters know about the new ID requirements.

"This law has been litigated every way," she said. "It is relevant that three courts have looked at this issue."

But Bondurant said the case will be decided under the Georgia constitution, which he said permits any 18-year-old citizen the right to vote as long as he or she meets minimum residency requirements, has registered to vote and hasn't been convicted of a felony or been found mentally incompetent.

"This case is explicitly limited to provisions of the state Constitution," he said.

The issue is highly partisan. Republican claim the photo IDs help prevent fraud and Democrats claim the law is a Republican effort to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters because the poor people and minorities are less likely to have a drivers' licenses and may not have obtained a free voter ID card at voter registration offices. Under the former law, voters could use any of 17 forms of identification, including non-photo ID such as a utility bill or Social Security card, to prove their identity at the polls.

Handel, whose office oversees elections, has called the photo ID a "common sense" requirement, and she notes Democrats have not produced a voter who has been blocked from casting a ballot by the law.

"This is politics at its absolute worst," she said.

State Democratic Party Spokesman Martin Matheny said Handel was responding like a partisan despite being the elected official whose job is to oversee fair elections.

"We're going to fight this in the courts," he said. "She really needs not to use the office for partisan attacks."