District judge sends voter ID suit back

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

"Courts coordinate voter ID cases" IL Jan. 6-19, 2010

A federal judge ruled against a Cumberland man in his federal challenge to Indiana's voter identification law, but has remanded his pending state claims back to Marion Superior Court where the case initially started.

In the case of Robbin Stewart v. Marion County, et al., No. 1:08-CV-586, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment April 16 for Marion County, Clerk Beth White, and the State of Indiana. The case challenged the state's voter ID law that's been upheld on one front by the Supreme Court of the United States and is currently pending on state issues before the Indiana Supreme Court. Stewart initially filed the case in state court in 2008, but it was removed to federal court. He argued the law violates the First, Fourth, 14th, and 24th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The judge ruled that Stewart's First and 14th amendment claims are fore- closed by the decisions that went to the SCOTUS in Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F. Supp.2d 775 (S.D. Ind. 2006), and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). He also ruled that claims on the voter ID law being a poll tax should also fail because the 7th Circuit already noted that it's not a poll tax in Crawford. Stewart's Fourth Amendment challenge failed because those rights aren't affected, and there was no impact on his rights because he had a choice to not present his license in order to vote or fill out a provisional ballot.

"Even if requiring identification at the polls does constitute a search, it still does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Judge McKinney wrote. "... The State of Indiana has an important interest in preventing voter fraud. Asking every voter who appears at the polls for identification in a consistent manner is a lawful means of serving this interest."

The judge decided not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stewart's pending claims under Indiana state law and remanded the case to Marion Superior Court for consideration. The remand comes after the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments in March in League of Women Voters of Indiana, et al. v. Rokita,
No. 49S02-1001-CV-00050, which challenges the voter ID law on state claims and last year saw the Indiana Court of Appeals strike it down as unconstitutional.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.