ILNews

Voter ID questions remain after SCOTUS ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The primary election in Indiana has come and gone. Voters had to show photo identification, the same as in other recent elections, but it was the first since the nation's highest court upheld the almost three-year-old state statute requiring specific ID at the polls.

Most agree the U.S. Supreme Court decision April 28 hasn't ended the debate about voter identification laws and that more law-drafting and subsequent litigation prior to the November general election is likely.

Nationally, both voters and the legal community should be ready for more debate because the recent ruling didn't have a clear majority and six justices agreed to some extent that Indiana's law could burden some voters.

The court issued a fractured 6-3 decision in 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, a pair of consolidated cases challenging the Indiana statute passed in 2005. Opponents argued that the law would unfairly target people who might have trouble getting an ID, while the state contended it needed the right to impose the rules to prevent voter fraud.

A plurality opinion led to justices conceding that the law could impose a special burden on some voters, though the record doesn't have enough evidence to show what that burden is and if it's severe enough to overturn the statute entirely. In rejecting challenges to these types of laws, the court determined that future challenges must come in regard to specific laws that are already applied in an election and where evidence can be established.

"They haven't completely slammed the courthouse door shut, but it's going to be problematic whether the right set of facts will come along to convince judges this should be struck down 'as applied,'" said William Groth, an attorney who represented the Indiana Democratic Party. "It is hard to read Justice (John Paul) Stevens' majority opinion and come away with any clear guidelines."

The decision came eight days before Hoosiers went the polls for the May 6 primary election, when a record turnout came as Democrats flooded the polls and the state saw many Republicans switching their ticket to have a voice.

Election Day mostly went well, though scattered reports came about voters - many voting for the first time since the 2005 law took effect - not understanding which government-issued photo ID was needed.

A voter-assistance hot line received several calls from would-be voters in Indiana. They were turned away at precincts because they lacked state or federal identification bearing a photograph, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The center and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law established the hot line as part of Election Protection, the nation's largest nonpartisan voter protection coalition.

One college freshman in South Bend reported she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver's license, while a newly married woman reported she was told she couldn't vote because her license didn't match the one with her voter registration record.

While poll workers were trying to help the student, the Election Protection line coordinator reported that a group of 12 elderly Catholic nuns were turned away from the polls because they didn't have proper identification, though they'd known about the requirement beforehand. 

 "These laws are confusing. People don't know how they're supposed to be applied," said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center for Justice and coordinator of the Election Protection hot line.

Following the ruling late last month, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita dismissed any notion that the laws were confusing and called the ruling a "clear cut victory" for states wanting to impose voter ID rules. He said at least 25 states had called his office about the case since it was argued in early January, and now this ruling can serve as a road map for those jurisdictions wanting to initiate similar reforms. About 20 states already have some type of voter ID regulation, he said.

The Brennan Center for Justice criticized the decision but also noted that this didn't give states a blank check for blocking eligible voters; it called on lawmakers across the country to reject similar laws.

Debate is already rampant about the ultimate meaning of this decision and what comes next.

Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he was disappointed but also encouraged by the possibilities left open by the court. If the law does burden voters at the polls, that could lead to more ammunition for future litigation.

"My sense is that a little has been decided but not all that much," said Michael Pitts, a professor at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis. "As predicted, we have a very fractured Supreme Court and there's not really widespread agreement on how to handle these voter-identification cases, or election-law cases in general."

 Justice 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.

The conclusion reached by the court as a whole affirms the previous ruling in April 2006 by U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis, and the ruling last year by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed her decision
2-1.

While the law stands for now, some justices who voted to uphold the law disagreed and speculated this could lead to more litigation on the issue.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia - along with Justices Thomas and Alito - cautioned 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.

Election law professor Richard Hasen at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who'd filed an amicus curiae brief in the cases, said the six justices who voted to uphold the law did so for different reasons and only three offered a strict interpretation of defending the law. That means uncertainty for lower courts on this issue, he said.

Groth expects to see this case come up in state courts at some point later this year. An interesting opening would be if a suit were filed under the Indiana Constitution challenging the statute as a violation of the state provision of qualifications for voting, such as age, residency, and citizenship. Groth said one could argue that this ruling effectively imposes a fourth condition on voting that isn't mentioned in the constitution, and this is an attempt by the legislature to get around a constitutional amendment.

"That's still an avenue out there, and that kind of lawsuit might be forthcoming between now and November," Groth said.

Meanwhile, Pitts saw Justice Stevens' writing a narrow approach to this issue, possibly a strategy to push the issue down the road to another time. Justice Scalia seems pretty upset about that, Pitts observed, while the three other justices dissent with the ultimate ruling. He predicted litigation will arise after both the May and November elections.

"This is the biggest test since it's the first time this law went into effect in 2005 that we'll have this big a turnout," he said. "This (ruling) opens the door to other challenges, here and elsewhere." • 

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT