ILNews

ACLU wants SCOTUS to hear Indiana voter ID case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States is now being asked to weigh in on Indiana's two-year-old voter identification law.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Indiana Democratic Party decided separately May 16 to seek certiorari in the case. Petitions are due in mid-July.

Discussion about the Hoosier suit's trek to the nation's highest court has circled since April 5 when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago declined to rehear en banc the case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, et al., No. 06-2218, which challenged the state's voter identification law that went into effect in July 2005.

That ruling was the latest in the legal scuffle initiated by Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, against Secretary of State Todd Rokita and the Marion County Election Board. The ACLU of Indiana had sued on behalf of those who could be impacted - possibly to the extent of not voting - by the law.

Opponents argued that the law would unfairly target people who might have trouble getting an ID, but U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in April 2006 ruled the law doesn't infringe on anyone's right to cast a ballot. Her ruling said opponents had not produced evidence of a single person who would not be able to vote under the law.

The federal Circuit Court upheld her ruling and the state law Jan. 4, with one of the three panelists - Judge Terrence Evans - disagreeing. In that opinion, Evans wrote in a strongly worded dissent that the state law is a "not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. ... The potential for mischief with this law is obvious."

He also wrote the court should strictly scrutinize the law and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

The Indiana ACLU's legal director Ken Falk has spent the past two months researching similar cases and is aware of court challenges nationwide that are similar to Indiana's, including Georgia, Arizona." Many states are trying to adopt these ID-based requirements, and this is an issue that's being litigated across the country," he said. "It's something that will get up there at some point."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT