TPMMuckraker is raising alarm about DOJ's amicus brief filed recently in the Indiana Voter ID case. It suggests that DOJ's decision to file a brief is suspect and that the positions in the DOJ brief are somehow "extreme." Rick Hasen echoes some of these themes here.

  I confess, I don't get the problem. To be clear, I am underwhelmed by those who claim that voter fraud needs to be a major priority of DOJ. I also have no idea if I would vote for the Indiana law if I were somehow reincarnated as a Hoosier legislator. But the federal interest seems obvious enough. The Indiana law was enacted pursuant to several federal statutes regulating the electoral process, and (as I understand it) the Indiana elections will cover both state and federal races. Sounds like a strong federal interest to me, making DOJ involvement seem proper. And while I am not expert in this area, the brief on the merits appears pretty persuasive.

  Of course, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree with the DOJ position (although, without going into the details, I would guess it will). But I'm puzzled as to why the filing of the brief is itself supposed to be alarming or unusual.