An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger 'others'" — underscoring the plural nature of the term.

Craig's brief goes on to cite other convictions that were overturned because the multiple-victim test wasn't met. His lawyers apply the same logic to his case.

The Republican senator pleaded guilty in August after his arrest two months earlier at the Minneapolis airport. It was part of a broader undercover push targeting men soliciting sex in public restrooms.

Craig was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

"Appellant's alleged conduct in this case affected only a single individual — Sergeant Karsnia," the Craig brief says. "It did not — and could not affect 'others' as the disorderly conduct statute requires, and therefore, does not satisfy that element of the statute."

The brief also argues that Karsnia himself could not have been offended by the alleged conduct because "he invited it." The alleged conduct, Craig's lawyers added, doesn't rise to the level of being "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy."

Craig's earlier attempt to withdraw his plea was turned down by a district court judge, and the case is now before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Besides attacking the law he was prosecuted under, Craig's legal team argues that the hand signal allegedly used to communicate a desire to engage in sexual conduct would be constitutionally protected speech. They also say the plea is technically flawed because it lacked a judicial signature.

Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which oversees the Minneapolis airport and which brought the charges, said he was confident the guilty plea will stand.

"Facts are resilient, and Sen. Craig's continued, transparent efforts to escape them don't change the truth of his behavior in an airport restroom or the fact that he admitted guilt last August," Hogan said.

Prosecutors have 45 days to respond, and then the case will be scheduled for oral arguments. Once heard, a ruling is required within 90 days.

Craig has said he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

The opponents, mainly Democrats, view voter ID a modern-day poll tax that disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters — who tend to back Democrats. Yet, a federal judge found that opponents of the law were unable to produce evidence of a single Indiana resident who had been barred from voting because of the law.

The Supreme Court, which famously split 5-4 in the case that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George Bush, will take up the Indiana law on January 9, just as the 2008 presidential primaries are getting under way.

A decision should come by late June, in time to be felt in the November elections in Indiana and in Georgia, the other state with a strict photo ID requirement, as well as in a handful of other states.

The justices will be asked to decide whether the law is an impermissible attempt to discourage certain voters or a reasonable precaution among several efforts aimed at cutting down on illegal voting.

"There's more than a little bit of irony in going to the Supreme Court and asking them to rise above partisan politics in election cases," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The court's decision in the disputed 2000 election is partly responsible for the ensuing increase in election-related lawsuits and the loss of confidence by some groups in the voting system, Hasen said. Yet, the other branches of government seem more politicized than ever, leaving the court as the best option despite the 2000 election dispute, he said.

Indiana argues that demands for identification are frequent in today's society, and producing a photo ID at polling places is hardly onerous.

"In light of such widespread demands for ... government-issued photo identification, it is almost shocking that in late 2007 Indiana can be characterized as even unusual in requiring it at the polls," the state said in its court filing.

The Bush administration maintains states need not wait for fraud to occur to take action to prevent it. "The state's interest in deterring voter fraud before it happens is evident from the monumental harm that can come from such fraud," the government said in its supporting brief.

The law's opponents counter that an ID may be just one card among many in most people's wallets, but some groups are far less likely to have them.

Homeless people wanting to vote might face the most difficulty under the law. While the state will provide a voter ID card free of charge to the poor, applicants still must have a birth certificate or other documentation to get the ID card.

"I think it's wonderful, but if you can't prove who you are, you can't get an ID," said Carter Wolf, executive director of Horizon House, which provides services to homeless people.

Getting a birth certification isn't always easy, Wolf said, or cheap. Sometimes it can cost $60 to $70 to get a birth certificate from other states.

"Obtaining a photo identification card under Indiana law requires documentation that is difficult, if not impossible, for many homeless individuals to provide," Carter Phillips, a leading Supreme Court lawyer, wrote in a supporting brief.

Even without an ID, indigent people can cast provisional ballots, then show up within 10 days at county offices and sign a form attesting to their vote.

But the Marion County Election Board, which includes Indianapolis, said just two of 34 voters who cast provisional ballots because they lacked voter ID showed up at county offices to validate their vote in the 2007 municipal election. Their signatures all matched those on file, but could not be counted because of the photo ID requirement.

Hasen said while neither side has abundant evidence to back its position the fraud argument is far less plausible than the claim that and ID requirement will reduce voter turnout.

Someone wanting to sway an election through fraud would be unlikely to get individuals to show up at the polls, pretend to be someone else and then ask them to cast a secret, unverifiable ballot, said Hasen.

But he said, "When voting is more difficult, people tend to not vote."

Opponents to the law argue the real potential for voter fraud lies in the filing of absentee ballots and that Indiana has made it easier to vote absentee in recent years.

Bradley's lawyer quit before the trial, and a Sonoma County judge appointed a replacement in a hearing from which Bradley and her chosen lawyer were excluded. When Bradley sought to dismiss the new lawyer because of conflicts, Superior Court Judge Knoel Owen refused, saying the trial had already been delayed by almost two years and it wasn't clear Bradley could pay for her own lawyer.

In Wednesday's 9-2 ruling granting Bradley a new trial, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said nearly all the pretrial delays were the results of judges' decisions, not Bradley's.

Noting that Bradley's trial lawyer disagreed with her on a possible plea agreement and on whether she should testify, the court said the trial judge's decision had created an adversary relationship between lawyer and client.

Defense lawyer Dennis Riordan praised the ruling and said a new trial could result in a lesser conviction, for second-degree murder or manslaughter. Deputy Attorney General Gregory Ott, who represented the prosecution, said the court disregarded a federal law that requires federal judges to defer to state court rulings unless they are clearly wrong.