Crawford v. Marion Cty Elec. Bd & Indiana Democratic Pty v. Rokita

In a closely-watched case heading into the 2008 election, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law.

The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Nos. 07-21 and 07-25, is a challenge to the 2005 Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Until July 2005, voters needed only to sign a poll book to demonstrate that their signature was consistent with the voter registration on file.

Plaintiffs, including the local Democratic Party, United Senior Action of Indiana, Concerned Clergy of Indiana, and the state NAACP, argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the right to vote. They contended that some would-be voters who are either homeless or who do not drive -- and therefore do not need state-issued IDs -- would be prevented from voting. Moreover, they argued in their petition for certiorari, those citizens are unlikely to obtain the required identification either because of the cost or paperwork involved in doing so.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court in approving the law. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007). Judge Richard Posner, joined by Bush appointee Diane Sykes, wrote that the Democrats' inability to find even a single plaintiff who would testify that the law would prevent him from voting demonstrated the slight burden Indiana was imposing. Posner went on to question whether individuals get much personal reward from voting "since elections for political office at the state or federal level are never decided by just one vote." On the other side of the scale, he reasoned, was the state's legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud.

Judge Terrence Evans, an Indiana resident himself, bluntly countered that the law was a "not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic." He took the state to task for setting up barriers to the polling place at the same time that voter participation has been declining, in the name of fraud prevention, which he called a "fig leaf."

The Seventh Circuit declined to hear the case en banc, but four judges dissented from that vote. Writing for the four, Judge Diane Wood cast doubt on a voting rights rule "that depends in part for support on the idea that no one vote matters." Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 484 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2007).

In urging the Supreme Court to review the decision, the appellants explained that the federal government adopted minimal voter ID requirements in 2002, followed by twenty-six states that have adopted more onerous ID requirements in recent years. The plaintiffs asked the Court to decide before the 2008 general election whether those laws pass muster.

On April 28, 2008, a divided Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law, contending it "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'"

"The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religious objections to being photographed," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court. "In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

Stevens' opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred and was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas.

Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a dissenting opinion, contending that the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens." Justtice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion.

In a closely-watched case heading into the 2008 election, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law.

The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Nos. 07-21 and 07-25, is a challenge to the 2005 Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Until July 2005, voters needed only to sign a poll book to demonstrate that their signature was consistent with the voter registration on file.

Plaintiffs, including the local Democratic Party, United Senior Action of Indiana, Concerned Clergy of Indiana, and the state NAACP, argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the right to vote. They contended that some would-be voters who are either homeless or who do not drive -- and therefore do not need state-issued IDs -- would be prevented from voting. Moreover, they argued in their petition for certiorari, those citizens are unlikely to obtain the required identification either because of the cost or paperwork involved in doing so.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court in approving the law. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007). Judge Richard Posner, joined by Bush appointee Diane Sykes, wrote that the Democrats' inability to find even a single plaintiff who would testify that the law would prevent him from voting demonstrated the slight burden Indiana was imposing. Posner went on to question whether individuals get much personal reward from voting "since elections for political office at the state or federal level are never decided by just one vote." On the other side of the scale, he reasoned, was the state's legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud.

Judge Terrence Evans, an Indiana resident himself, bluntly countered that the law was a "not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic." He took the state to task for setting up barriers to the polling place at the same time that voter participation has been declining, in the name of fraud prevention, which he called a "fig leaf."

The Seventh Circuit declined to hear the case en banc, but four judges dissented from that vote. Writing for the four, Judge Diane Wood cast doubt on a voting rights rule "that depends in part for support on the idea that no one vote matters." Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 484 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2007).

In urging the Supreme Court to review the decision, the appellants explained that the federal government adopted minimal voter ID requirements in 2002, followed by twenty-six states that have adopted more onerous ID requirements in recent years. The plaintiffs asked the Court to decide before the 2008 general election whether those laws pass muster.

On April 28, 2008, a divided Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law, contending it "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'"

"The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religious objections to being photographed," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court. "In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

Stevens' opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred and was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas.

Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a dissenting opinion, contending that the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens." Justtice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion.