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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT