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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT