ILNews

UPDATE: SCOTUS upholds Indiana voter ID law

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A week before Hoosier voters head to the polls, the nation's highest court has upheld Indiana's law requiring voters to show identification before casting a ballot.

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision, this morning in the pair of consolidated Hoosier cases William Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et al., No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party, et al. v. Todd Rokita, No. 07-25. The decision rejected the constitutional challenge to the strictest voter ID law in the nation and dismissed any uncertainty that may have existed going into the May 6 primary. In a 6-3 decision, the court didn't have a clear majority and only three wanted a broad interpretation defending the state's almost three-year-old law. The result is what election law scholars had predicted might happen because of limited evidence of voter burden or voter fraud in the record at the lower court levels, though it paves the way for more questions on this issue in the future. "This is by no means a ringing endorsement of voter ID laws," said Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which lost its constitutional challenge to the Hoosier statute but finds encouragement in the justices' writing. "Yes, we lost, and we're disappointed. But what's interesting is the plurality opinion that says there wasn't evidence in this case ... but there's a chance for others." Opponents argued that the 2005 law would unfairly target people who might have trouble getting an ID, but U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis ruled in April 2006 that the law doesn't infringe on anyone's right to cast a ballot. She focused on the fact that opponents had not produced evidence of a single person who would not be able to vote under the law, which is a point the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals joined her on when affirming the decision last year. This decision affirms the 7th Circuit's ruling. Other attorneys on the consolidated cases couldn't be reached for comment at IL deadline. Justice John Paul Stevens authored the majority's 21-page opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring; Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito concurred in result with a separate opinion, while Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented, calling the Hoosier statute unconstitutional. In the lead opinion, justices conceded that the law could impose some special burden on some voters but that the record doesn't have enough evidence to show what that burden is and whether it's severe enough to overturn the state statute. "When we consider only the statute's broad application to all Indiana voters, we conclude that it imposes only a limited burden on voters' rights," Justice Stevens wrote in the lead opinion, citing Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 439 (1992). "The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'" The conclusion reached by the court as a whole is that the law may be unconstitutional as applied to a small number of voters who must incur cost in order to obtain the ID, but because this case has no such voters as plaintiffs, it fails to reach that claim. In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia cautions that the lead opinion could result in more litigation because it relies on the record and, in this particular case, doesn't have enough evidence to show a special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny of the entire statute. "The Indiana photo-identification law is a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation that individual impacts are relevant to determining the severity of the burden it imposes," he wrote, adding later that it's a "universally applicable" and "eminently reasonable" statute. "Even if I thought that stare decisis did not foreclose adopting an individual-focused approach, I would reject it as an original matter. This is an area where the dos and don'ts need to be known in advance of the election, and voter-by-voter examination of the burdens of voting regulations would prove especially disruptive. A case-by-case approach naturally encourages constant litigation." Justice Souter, in his 30-page dissent, found the lead opinion's logic about limited burdens "far from trivial" and wrote the statute threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on tens of thousands Hoosier voters. "The Indiana Voter ID law is thus unconstitutional: the state interests fail to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote, and the law imposes unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old," Justice Souter wrote, adding that he would vacate the 7th Circuit's ruling and remand. Justice Breyer issued a dissent that weighed the statute's voting-related interests with voter burdens, detailing what other states have done and finding that Indiana's law imposes greater burdens than those jurisdictions or a federal commission that had made national recommendations on voter ID regulations. Falk said he's encouraged by the plurality decision. "This isn't sour grapes, we understand we lost and this case is over," he said. "But it leaves open the possibility that if this law does what we think it will and burdens the right to vote, then those people will have judicial recourse."
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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT