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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT