« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 6 NFP) | Main | Ind. Decisions - More on Mullins v. Parkview »

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Potential appeal of Indiana voter ID case to Supreme Court anticipated

Judge Sara Evans Barker upheld the Indiana voter ID law a year ago -- see this April 15, 2006 ILB entry. Here are some quotes from the Indianapolis Star story at the time:

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld Indiana's stringent voter-identification law. Barker said plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party, failed to back up their contention that the ID law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots.

Barker wrote in her 126-page opinion that the opponents' arguments would require "the invalidation" not only of the photo ID statute, "but of significant portions of Indiana's election code which have previously passed Constitutional muster."

A number of states require photo identification for voters, but Indiana's law is considered among the most stringent because it offers few exceptions to the requirement.

The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, a co-plaintiff, had argued that the law -- passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2005 to prevent voter fraud -- would particularly affect the elderly, minorities and people with disabilities.

They would bear the cost of obtaining the documentation needed to get state-issued ID cards, plaintiffs said, arguing that having to spend money to vote was the modern-day equivalent of the "poll tax" -- the Jim Crow-era method of keeping black people from voting.

But Barker wrote: "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting" because of the statute.

The judge had particular scorn for a report prepared by an expert hired by the Democrats that said 989,000 registered voters in Indiana do not possess a BMV-issued driver's license or photo ID.

Barker said she did not consider the report in her determination because she viewed the analysis and conclusions as "utterly incredible and unreliable." Among the report's numerous flaws, she said, was that it failed to account for Indiana's bloated voter rolls, called by a defense expert the most inflated in the nation.

So, according to the opinion, the law was passed to prevent voter fraud in Indiana. And the ID requirement would not result in voter disenfranchisement.

The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit. The ruling upholding the law came out Jan. 4, 2007 - see ILB entry here. Judge Posner wrote: "It is beyond question ‘that States may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election - and campaign-related disorder.’ ” Judge Evans' dissent began: "Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-toothinly- veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We should * * * strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote."

I'm told the decision on whether to appeal will be made in the next few days. In the meantime, a lot has happened -- for one, the papers have been full of stories about pressure being put on U.S. attorneys nation-wide to dig out and prosecute examples of voter fraud. See this ILB entry from April 12, 2007 for background.

All this is a preamble to this post today by Professor Rick Hasen of the Election Law blog, which concludes:

Upon closer examination, I'm shocked that the district court granted summary judgment on this "evidence" of voter fraud, and that it passed muster before Judge Posner, someone usually interested in what the empirical evidence actually shows.

We'll see if this case goes up to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 2, 2007 04:42 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions