ILNews

Justices uphold state's voter ID law

Ruling leaves open possibility for individual challenges.

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Voters will still need to have valid photo identification to be able to vote in person in Indiana elections. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s voter ID law June 30, ruling the state’s legislature has the power to require voters to show photo ID when voting at the polls.

The decision comes in League of Women Voters of Indiana Inc. and League of Women Voters of Indianapolis Inc. v. Todd Rokita in his Official Capacity as Indiana Secretary of State, No. 49S02-1001-CV-50. The Indiana Court of Appeals in September 2009 struck down a portion of the state law enacted in 2005.

Court of Appeals Judges Patricia Riley, James Kirsch, and Paul Mathias 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 judges determined the requirement isn’t considered a substantive voting qualification as the League of Women Voters had argued, and that state officials are able to enact procedural regulations as long as the rules are reasonable, uniform, and impartial to all voters. That isn’t the case here, the court decided.

After the appellate court issued their decision, Gov. Mitch Daniels criticized the ruling, calling it “an act of judicial arrogance” that will eventually be a “footnote in history.”

When the League of Women Voters filed the suit in July 2008 in Marion County, the organization claimed the voter ID law violates Article 2, Section 2 of the state constitution that says citizens only need to meet age, citizenship, and residency requirements in order to vote in person. The plaintiffs also argued the statute violates the state constitution’s equal privileges section because it doesn’t treat all voters the same. Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid upheld the law in 2008, and the justices granted transfer in January to consider the issue.

The justices voted 4-1 in affirming the dismissal, agreeing that the law does not violate Article 2, Section 2; and Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

“No individual voter has alleged that the Voter ID Law has prevented him or her from voting or inhibited his or her ability to vote in any way,” wrote Justice Brent Dickson for the majority. “Our decision today does not prevent any such voter from challenging the Law in the future.”

The voter ID law’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls is merely regulatory in nature. The justices also found not requiring photo ID for mail-in absentee voters is reasonably related to the inherent distinctions between such voters and those voting in person. They also found the extremely small number of voters who live in state-licensed care facilities who don’t have to show ID to vote represent a minor and insubstantial disparity permissible under Section 23.

Justice Theodore Boehm dissented because he said he believed the issue in the case is whether the Indiana Constitution allows the General Assembly in one session to impose a voter ID requirement or whether it requires that two successive sessions of the legislature agree that the measure is necessary and submit it to the voters to make the final decision. The photo ID requirement can only be imposed by amending the constitution, he wrote.

The plaintiffs allege not all registered voters have a valid photo ID, and cite instances of voters who were turned away for lack of a photo ID, or who cast a provisional ballot then were unable or unwilling to complete the process required for the vote to be counted. These allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, he wrote.

He also rejected the law because some of the restrictions in obtaining the state-issued photo ID don’t address the legitimate concerns of preventing voter fraud and a person doesn’t have to show photo ID to register to vote. All citizens have standing to attack a statute that unconstitutionally denies any voter the right to exercise electoral franchise.

“A statute that wrongly denies any group of citizens the right to vote harms us all, and therefore may properly be challenged as invalid in its entirety, not merely as to those directly affected,” he wrote. “Thus I do not agree with the majority that the remedy the plaintiffs seek here – invalidating the voter ID requirement – is beyond their grasp.”

Karen Celestino-Horseman, one of the Indianapolis attorneys for the League of Women Voters, said they were disappointed by the ruling and they were hopeful the Supreme Court would allow them to be able to present their case to the trial court.

She anticipated attorneys would watch for potential plaintiffs’ suits or even a potential class action in the future, especially after November’s election and January 2011, when the federal government’s imposition of specific standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and other identification begins.

Despite that, she also hopes the legislature will look at expanding what constitutes acceptable identification.

While the justices say the door is open for future challenges from people who claim the law discriminates against them, Celestino-Horseman said that’s not realistic because the concern is the people who would challenge the law are those who don’t have financial or other means to challenge it.

Those on the other side of the case praised the ruling. Secretary of State Todd Rokita said in a statement that “Hoosier commonsense prevailed again” and that he will continue to stand up for the rights of residents so they can continue to have fair and accurate elections.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller praised the state’s Solicitor General Tom Fisher, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the state.

“My office has vigorously investigated various forms of election fraud in multiple counties and we combat daily the problem of identity theft in consumer transactions. The Voter ID statute was a reasonable step to ensure the integrity of the electoral process and prevent fraudulent voting from taking place, so I am pleased that the Indiana Supreme Court has declared that the statute is constitutional,” Zoeller said in a statement.

This state case comes more than two years after a separate 2008 ruling in William Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the state law may be unconstitutional as applied to a small number of voters who must incur costs in order to obtain the ID, but that since that case had no such voters as plaintiffs, it failed to reach that claim. That ruling also rejected the facial challenge, but left the door open for as-applied challenges in federal court and those involving state constitutional claims.•

Michael W. Hoskins contributed to this story.

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. 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