ILNews

SCOTUS hears voter ID case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Arguments played out in the Supreme Court of the United States this morning on the legality of Indiana's voter identification law.

The nine justices heard an hour of arguments at 10 a.m. in the combined Hoosier cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25. Both challenge the state's three-year-old voter photo ID law that's been upheld by both U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stakes are high. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Indiana has the strictest statute in the country, and the future of all these types of laws could come by late June, just in time for the general election in November.

Justices could use the case to guide courts on weighing claims of voter fraud against those of disenfranchisement, and many legal scholars point to this being the most significant voting-related case since the Supreme Court's bitterly divided decision Bush v. Gore, which clinched the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush.

Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher argued for the state attorney general's office, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement also argued on behalf of the government. Washington, D.C., attorney Paul M. Smith - a partner at Jenner & Block who's argued a dozen times before the court - took on the petitioners' side for the Indiana Democratic Party and American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Petitioners' attorneys, Ken Falk with the ACLU of Indiana and William Groth for the Democratic Party, sat in court and observed.

Indiana Lawyer could reach neither Groth nor Fisher for comment following the proceeding, but Falk said he wasn't surprised by the tone of the arguments.

Justices focused mostly on aspects of whether the burden is real and what justification exists for the law, Falk said. Several asked how attorneys could argue no potential fraud or disenfranchisement exists, and how many people this law could hinder. A general consensus from justices seemed that some people would be burdened, Falk said. Smith argued "quite forcefully" that no justification exists, he said.

"All three who argued got questions from the court that were all over the place and went back and forth," Falk said, noting that it's nearly impossible to predict an outcome.

Falk said the packed courtroom included a handful of Hoosier officials and attorneys, including Marion County Clerk Beth White, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, and Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter. Indiana Tax Court Judge Thomas G. Fisher also attended to watch his son's arguments.

After arguments, Falk was meeting with Senators Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to discuss the future of voter identification statutes in the country, according to the ACLU-Indiana's Web site.

More coverage of the arguments can be found online at the Indiana Lawyer Web site, as well as in the Jan. 23 print edition of the newspaper.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT