ILNews

COA says voter I.D. law unconstitutional

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has tossed out the state's 4-year-old voter identification law as unconstitutional, bringing new attention to a statute that has been upheld by the nation's highest court.

Striking down the 2005-enacted law, a unanimous three-judge panel issued a 29-page opinion today in League of Women Voters of Indiana and League of Women Voters of Indianapolis v. Todd Rokita, No. 49A02-0901-CV-40.

The ruling reverses a decision from 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, Judges Patricia Riley, James Kirsch, and Paul Mathias 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.

Attorneys hadn't decided by early afternoon today whether they will ask for a rehearing or for the Indiana Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue and reverse the appellate court's findings. Some of that may depend on timing before referendums and special elections throughout the state in November.

"This is a pretty strong decision because it recognizes the differences in place for absentee and in-person voters," said Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney with Austin & Jones who represented the League of Women Voters. "We are very pleased with this."

Going beyond what the League of Women Voters had brought as an as-applied challenge, the state appellate court found the statute unconstitutional on its face. The judges determined the requirement isn't considered a substantive voting qualification as the League of Women Voters had argued, and that state officials are able to enact procedural regulations as long as the rules are reasonable, uniform, and impartial to all voters. That isn't the case here, the court decided.

Indiana's lack of stringent absentee-voter regulations makes it unreasonable for this voter ID statute to put additional burdens only on in-person voters and not the others, the panel held. The judges cited Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 2006), which found that inherent differences make mailed-in ballots more susceptible to improper influences or fraud.

"If it is reasonable to 'more stringently govern absentee-balloting,' then it follows that a statute that imposes a less stringent requirement for absentee voters than for those voting in person would not be reasonable," Judge  Riley wrote for the majority. "This is what the Voter I.D. law does."

The court took issue with how state care facilities exempt residents from the voter ID Law requirement, despite the fact that these locations are typically polling places and the absentee voting requirement already gives them an avenue to vote without showing the required ID. The legislature could address that point without destroying the primary objectives of the law, the court said.

But that isn't the case for the regulation of absentee voters, the court noted.

"There may be different ways in which the inconsistent and partial treatment of the Voter I.D. Law could be cured, but it is not our task to form suggestions for the legislation," Judge Riley wrote.

Referring little to the ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Indiana judges found that the federal case didn't address the state statute questions at issue here.

In its ruling last summer in William Crawford, et al v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008), the SCOTUS held the law may be unconstitutional as applied to a small number of voters who must incur cost in order to obtain the ID, but that since that case has no such voters as plaintiffs, it failed to reach that claim. That ruling rejected the facial challenge, but left the door open for as-applied challenges in federal court and those involving state constitutional claims.

Reflecting on Crawford, Celestino-Horseman said it felt even better to get this decision after everything that's happened at the federal level.

"We lost on every level in the federal litigation, and so this is very exciting to have a ruling like this," she said. "This will truly make a difference to many people."

Indianapolis attorney William Groth, with Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, said the state law has always been vulnerable to challenges on many levels, but that the uniform argument has been a key point that now has the appellate court's agreement. Photo identification laws are a national issue and this decision will likely reverberate throughout the country, he said.

If the Indiana Supreme Court is asked and accepts the case, and affirms the decision, it could be one of only a few in state history where a statute is declared unconstitutional under Indiana Constitution's Article 1, Section 23.

State leaders responded immediately to word of the court decision, with former Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, issuing a statement that urges the Secretary of State to appeal and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels doing the same with strong words.

"This is preposterous... an extreme decision that flies in face of much better judges, frankly," the governor said, noting that he looks forward to it being reversed and that he doesn't see a need for any rewrite of the law. "This is an act of judicial arrogance, and that's always a bad idea. This decision will be a footnote to history, eventually."

The Indiana Attorney General's Office was reviewing the decision early today and wasn't prepared to comment, spokesperson Bryan Corbin said. A spokesperson in the Secretary of State's Office didn't return phone calls seeking comment about the ruling or the possibility of a transfer request to the Indiana Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT