There will be no apologies from this precinct. I have long argued that harsh voter ID laws are unfair, unconstitutional and un-American, and I will continue to say so.

The fact that a group of wealthy male jurists favors suppression of the franchise hardly makes it right. After all, the Founding Fathers believed that only white men should have the vote. They weren't right, either.

CYNTHIA TUCKER MY OPINION • E-mail Tucker Recent columns: Credit junkies hooked first by out-of-control consumerism  Preachers need to read Bill of Rights  Voter ID laws a GOP tactic of cynicism  Palin either too green or a genius actress  Credit crisis: Melting pot of problems  Troy Davis may be innocent  Sarah Palin: Cheney with a moose gun

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a wrongheaded ruling that upholds Indiana's voter ID law, widely believed the harshest in the nation. For now, the decision validates similar laws in several other states, including Georgia.

It's no coincidence that Republicans rule in most state Legislatures that have pushed through these laws. For decades — since the civil rights movement enabled black voting rights, in fact — Republicans have used the guise of protecting against "voter fraud" to justify laws that harass, intimidate and invalidate voters of color. Having given up trying to woo black and brown voters with progressive politics, the GOP has resorted to procedures that suppress their vote.

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, then a young Arizona attorney active in Republican politics and an adviser to Barry Goldwater, was accused of harassing black and Latino voters at the polls in Phoenix in 1962. Testifying before the Senate in 1986, after Rehnquist had been nominated as chief justice, James Brosnahan, a former assistant U.S. attorney, said that he had investigated complaints about behavior by Rehnquist and others that "was designed to reduce the number of black and Hispanic voters by confrontation and intimidation." (Rehnquist denied the charge and was confirmed.)

The new voter ID laws are simply a refined version of the same tactic. Rather than trying to intimidate educated, affluent voters of color — who are well-versed in voting rights — the laws target a smaller number of poor and less-educated voters, those less likely to have a driver's license. Since those voters tend to favor Democrats, discouraging them from voting can help Republicans.

In an earlier appeals court ruling backing the Indiana law, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner acknowledged the GOP's interest in stringent voter ID laws.

"No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote. Yet he still found that the law didn't violate any constitutional standards. Unbelievable.

Please don't argue that everybody has a driver's license because they are required to board a plane or rent a movie. I know little old ladies who have never been on a plane and never rented a movie but who faithfully cast a ballot because they respect the sacrifices made by those who gave their lives to procure a universal franchise. They don't cast fraudulent ballots. They are well-known in their communities, so poll workers have no doubt about who they are.

No matter how much proponents of those restrictive laws whine and point fingers, there is no evidence of the sort of in-person voter fraud these laws are supposed to prevent. There have been no reports of fraudulent voters showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else. Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged that fact even as he sided with his mossback colleagues in delivering this retrograde ruling.

If Republicans were sincere about preventing voter fraud, they would tighten requirements for absentee ballots, where most vote fraud occurs. But GOP-dominated state Legislatures, including Georgia's, have done precious little to change the rules for voting in absentia. That's because those who request absentee ballots are more likely to vote for Republican candidates, which makes that sort of fraud just fine.

People have fought hard for universal suffrage because it places the pauper and the prince, the lawyer and the bricklayer on the same level. We all have an equal opportunity to determine who runs the country. That's too important a principle to be left to the whims of a retrograde and highly partisan Supreme Court.

• Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor. Her column appears Wednesday and Sunday.