ID needed to register to vote ... sometimes

June 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld our state’s voter ID law requiring those who want to vote at the polls to show approved photo identification, like a driver’s license. In his dissent, Justice Theodore Boehm noted how you don’t need photo ID to register to vote.

But now you sort of do.

Starting tomorrow, Hoosiers can register to vote online at www.indianavoters.com. The new Online Voter Registration Solution is a result of legislation passed in 2009 to offer more and easier ways for people to register to vote.

It’s easier in the sense you don’t have to register in person or spend the time mailing in your registration. But there is a catch: You have to have an Indiana driver’s license or identification card to use the system.

You have to sign your voter registration form. Because you can’t do that electronically, your signature for registration is your signature with the BMV. In order to attach that in the new system, you have to enter your driver’s license or ID number.

But what about voter registration fraud? How will this be prevented with the new online system? Can’t someone use someone else’s driver’s license number to register?

In theory, yes, but a FAQ sheet on the new system says that county voter registration officials will use the online voter registration application, driver’s license or state ID card account holder information to verify someone’s identity. These are apparently similar tools to what they use with the Statewide Voter Registration System to prevent fraud to validate information through paper-based voter registration applications.

If you don’t have a valid ID right now, there is a way around it by using the current paper system. You’ll still need that ID to be able to vote so you may as well get one before registering to vote if possible. The Supreme Court says so.

 

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
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT