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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT