ILNews

Federal judge still won't block Voter ID law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A week before some Indiana voters go to the polls, a federal judge in Indianapolis has declined to block the state's voter identification law that's currently in flux following a state appellate court ruling in September.

U.S. Judge Larry McKinney on Monday denied a Cumberland attorney's motion for temporary injunctive relief, which would have stopped Indiana from being able to enforce its voter ID law during the Nov. 3 election.

The action comes in a federal case filed by Robbin Stewart to challenge the statute, which was passed in 2005 and has since been upheld by federal constitutional standards by the Supreme Court of the United States. Stewart filed the suit in April 2008 in Marion County, though it was later removed to the Southern District of Indiana to resolve the multiple federal and state constitutional claims. A year ago, Judge McKinney denied a request to certify a constitutional question for the Indiana Supreme Court's consideration. He also denied Stewart's first motion for preliminary injunction prior to the 2008 presidential election, and the judge referred to that previous order in denying this more recent motion.

What's changed since then, however, is an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling on Sept. 17 that struck down the state statute on grounds similar to what Stewart is arguing in his federal case. A unanimous three-judge panel for the state court reversed a ruling by Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid, who in late 2008 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.

The Indiana Supreme Court is currently considering requests from attorneys in the state suit to weigh in on that case, but justices haven't yet made a decision to grant or deny transfer.

Stewart's case remains open and a case management plan submitted earlier this year called for a two-day trial in November; it's unknown if that will still happen.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT