Older citizens will be particularly hurt by a series of election-law changes that would go into effect if a photo ID constitutional amendment passes, AARP told the state Supreme Court this week.

Another group opposed to the amendment, Citizens for Election Integrity, told the Supreme Court a new system of provisional balloting that the amendment requires would be costly and complicated.

Both organizations filed briefs in support of a legal challenge by the League of Women Voters and other organizations. The League is arguing that the language of the proposed photo ID constitutional amendment, which is to be submitted to voters in November, misstates or omits key provisions of the underlying amendment. The suit asks that the ballot question be stricken from the general election ballot.

The AARP brief notes that it has opposed similar laws in Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, Georgia and Arizona. It states that many older voters have expired IDs because they have stopped driving and would need to spend time and money tracking down underlying documents, such as birth and marriage certificates.

AARP states that the Camden Care Center in Minneapolis helped 13 residents find the necessary documents to bring their IDs up to date, and found that it "took many hours over nine months." The AARP concludes, "For older Americans, obtaining these underlying documents often involves grater trial than for the rest of the population."

"The breezy ballot language belies the complexity and uncertainty of its actual meaning regarding expired government-issued ID, and in particular, which photo IDs will be deemed 'valid,' " the AARP brief states.

The lawsuit concerns this ballot question, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature this year: "Shall the Minnesota constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?" If passed, an amendment would be inserted into the state constitution that contains other provisions as well, including more restrictive voter registration and a new system of two-step provisional voting.

Citizens for Election Integrity,which opposes the photo ID requirement, focused on concerns that changes in standards for registration could limit or do away with same-day registration, which has existed for nearly four decades, and also affect those precincts that vote by mail.

The group's brief also says the ballot question "fails to inform a voter that the proposed amendment creates an unprecedented, costly and complicated new provisional-voting system in Minnesota," an omission that is "unreasonable and misleading enough" to disqualify the question from appearing on the ballot.

The case in favor of the photo ID ballot question will be made by lawyers for the Minnesota Legislature and the lobbying group Minnesota Majority, which have not yet submitted their briefs.