ILNews

Attorneys ask justices to consider voter ID case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an expected move, the Indiana Attorney General's Office has asked the state Supreme Court to consider whether the 4-year-old voter identification law is constitutional.

That happened Friday, and today the attorneys who'd persuaded the Indiana Court of Appeals to strike down the statute planned to file a transfer petition seeking Supreme Court review.

So begins the briefing period that will further expand the legal reasons various attorneys think the Indiana Supreme Court should weigh in on the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law, which is now in flux after the ruling in League of Women Voters of Indiana and League of Women Voters of Indianapolis Inc. v. Todd Rokita, in his official capacity as Indiana Secretary of State, No. 49A02-0901-CV-40.

A unanimous Indiana Court of Appeals panel of Judges Patricia Riley, James Kirsch, and Paul Mathias reversed Sept. 17 a ruling by Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid, who late last year upheld the state statute and found it didn't violate Indiana Constitution Article 2, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 23. Instead, the appellate judges found the law "regulates voters in a manner that's not uniform and impartial," and as a result they instructed the trial judge to enter an order declaring it void.

While this is the first time the state justices could consider this issue as it relates to the Indiana Constitution, the federal courts - U.S. Supreme Court, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana - have all upheld the state statute adopted by the General Assembly in 2005.

In its transfer petition, the AG's office urges the state justices to accept the case on grounds that this case signifies an issue of great public importance that it notes "protects the legitimacy of elections," "enjoyed 75 percent public support at the time of enactment," and has been upheld at each federal court level.

The main arguments in the petition are:

• The League wrongfully sued the Indiana Secretary of State, who does not enforce the statute; the Court of Appeals dismissed this issue after finding he was a satisfactory defendant.

• The in-person and absentee voting processes are inherently different in ways that matter to the usefulness of the voter ID requirement.

• The nursing home precinct exemption reasonably relates to inherent characteristics of residents who vote where they live.

• "The Voter ID Law is self-evidently constitutional, so there has never been any point in proceeding with discovery or evidentiary submissions," the brief states. "The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals, however, responded to the motion to dismiss not simply by reinstating the case, but by ordering judgment against the State. The State has not even been permitted to answer the complaint, much less put the League to its burden or come forward with evidence. In this regard, the decision below departs so significantly from law and practice that it independently justifies granting transfer."

Indianapolis attorney Bill Groth at Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe told Indiana Lawyer he planned to file the League's transfer petition today. The petition relates to the appellate court's finding that the law isn't a substantive voting qualification but a procedural regulation, Groth explained.

Each side will be given a chance to file a set of response briefs before the justices take the issue under advisement. No timeline exists for them to make a decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT