Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Indiana’s mandate requiring voters to produce a government-issued photo ID produced a lot of reaction in Missouri.

Some of the best analysis of the impact in Missouri, from both sides, came from Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a critic of the photo ID requirement, and from state Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City, one of the original sponsors of the photo-ID law that the Missouri Supreme Court struck down in 2006.

Because the state high court ruled that Missouri’s requirement violated the state’s constitution, the decision wasn’t affected by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

At issue now: will photo-ID supporters seek to resurrect Missouri’s law? Doing so will require a statewide vote.

Here’s the assessments of Carnahan and Scott, both from interviews with my colleague — reporter Adam Jadhav — who worked with me on a story for Tuesday’s Post-Dispatch.

First, Scott:

“I think the (U.S. Supreme Court) ruling itself shows that Missouri’s attempt to provide fair elections was right on target and did not disenfranchise people,” he said.

“This allows us to feel sure in going back to address the Missouri state Supreme Court’s ruling.”

“The encouraging part is that it the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that a photo id requirement does not disenfranchise people and that it is a reasonable way to provide some validity and security in elections,” Scott continued.

“When you provide a free photo id, which is no more of a burden than you have to have to get on a plane or go to the store and rent a video, it’s just not something that is a hurdle for voters.”

Still, Scott acknowledged that it was unlikely that a new Missouri version could be in place by the November presidential election.

“It would be very difficult in the three weeks remaining to get something — that the Democrats will make very controversial — passed through the legislature.”

“And even if it’s passed and signed and then approved by voters in August, the Democrats will challenge this thing. That’s without question…”

Now, Carnahan:

“(The SCOTUS decision) doesn’t change the fact that the Missouri Supreme Court found a voter ID law unduly burdensome based on our own state constitution,” she said.

“If folks wanted to change Missouri’s constitution, they didn’t need to wait for the United State’s Supreme Court to tell them they could. So I think this ruling doesn’t really change anything.”

“My reading of the court’s opinion is that justices didn’t think there was sufficient evidence of burden and sufficient evidence of voters that would be harmed in the Indiana case.”

Carnahan noted in a statement sent Monday that, based on her office’s data, as many as 240,000 Missouri registered voters might have been prevented from voting because they lacked a drivers license — the most common form of government-issued photo ID.

She also had filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court laying out her office’s concerns. “One of the things that we did in our amicus brief was try to tell the story of regular people who would be hurt by this kind of law,” Carnahan said.

“Look, I’m in favor of reasonable laws. I’m in favor of people having to identify themselves, but we already do that here in Missouri.”

She also observed: “If the Legislature and the governor decide they want to take that action to pursue a constitutional amendment, that’s what they can do. I don’t think they’ll choose to do that.”