U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law
Feature Story by Antoine Morris - 5/1/2008
On April 28, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that states may require voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls in order to cast a ballot.
The ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board upheld a controversial Indiana voter photo ID law – the most restrictive in the nation – which has been widely criticized by civil rights and voting experts for erecting unnecessary obstacles for persons less likely to own such IDs, including the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and people of color.
Enacted in July 2005 along party lines, the law requires Indiana voters to present a government-issued photo ID, such as a state driver's ID or a U.S. passport, to cast a ballot. Provisional ballots are available to voters who don't bring a photo ID to the poll, but a provisional ballot will be counted only after the voter provides proof of identity at the local county election office within 10 days of the election.
In addition, driver's licenses and state-issued IDs must be renewed periodically, and people must re-register to vote whenever they move or change their name or the ID is not valid for voting.
In 2005, a federal judge in Indiana estimated 43,000 people who are old enough to vote did not own identification cards that comply with the state's voting law. Given this reality, civil rights groups and voting rights experts say that barriers like the ones created by the Indiana law may actually make voting harder for Americans and erode public confidence in the election process.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, said that the law was necessary "in preventing voter fraud," and to restore “public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process." even though the state had not found any evidence of voter fraud.
He also claimed that the burden to most voters was minimal since, "the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV (Bureau of Motor Vehicles), gathering the required documents…does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote." Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justice Antonin Scalia echoed those sentiments in a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, saying "the heavy burdens are no more than the different impacts of the single burden that the law uniformly imposes on all voters."
But in the dissenting opinion, Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, concluded that the Indiana law failed "to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote," and may disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights stressed that the voting process should be more inclusive. "On the precipice of a presidential election, our nation should be seeking ways to encourage more voters, not inventing excuses to deny citizens their constitutional right to vote. Although we are disappointed with today's decision, we are confident that it leaves the door open to future challenges in Indiana and elsewhere."
