(b) Moreover, under the facts of this case, Lake also lacked standing because, as of July 3, 2006, she did have a form of photo ID acceptable under the 2006 Act.
OCGA § 21–2–417(a)(2) indicates that proper photo identification includes a
It is undisputed that, in order to be allowed to use paratransit services offered by MARTA pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Lake applied for, received, and currently retains a MARTA/ADA photo ID card containing her picture, name, and address. As Lake conceded at trial, MARTA is an entity of the State of Georgia, and it issued the photo ID as part of a procedure to comply with the regulations set forth in the ADA. This ADA paratransit photo ID, therefore, would qualify as a “valid identification card issued by [an] entity of the State of Georgia ... authorized by law to issue personal identification.”
OCGA § 21–2–417(a)(2). Because Lake possesses a photo ID acceptable for in-person voting under the 2006 Act, once again, she lacks standing to challenge the Act as an unconstitutional restriction on her right to vote.