1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

DOES THIS LAW REALLY PROTECT VOTERS?

In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld an Indiana statute whose stated purpose is to prevent voter fraud.

This particular law requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at polling places. Only voters residing in nursing homes, along with those voting by absentee ballot, were exempt from the requirement.

If a voter lacks an ID, or if the validity of that document is questioned, a "provisional ballot" may be cast. But in order for that provisional vote to be counted, the voter must, within ten days of the election, file an affidavit of indigency, or procure a valid ID.*

The process has been viewed by some as a thinly veiled attempt to suppress Democrats. Critics note that those who lack the required credentials tend to be Democrats. While those exempt from the law -- like absentee voters and nursing-home residents -- tend to vote Republican.

The Democrat Party , along with other concerned groups, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the law's constitutionality. When that effort failed, the plaintiffs appealed to the CA7.

The plaintiffs argued that the law imposed a burden on the right to vote, a right "latently" protected by the U.S. Constitution.

On behalf of the appellate panel, Judge Richard Posner -- a Reagan appointee -- acknowledged that some people would not procure an ID in order to vote. And while the plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that it would be more expensive to organize voter-registration drives, for some unexplained reason, the suit's participants failed to indicate whether they could not, or would not, vote as a result of the new law. Thus, it appeared to the court that the plaintiffs' objections were primarily premised on the law's imposition of an additional expense on political campaigns.

The appellate court balanced that outcome against the statute's expected benefit of preventing voter fraud. While the plaintiffs asserted that the benefit would be minimal, since there has neither been a reported incident nor a conviction premised upon voter fraud, the CA7 still found such an argument unavailing.  Posner speculated that "busy poll workers" had been less than zealous enforcers of the law, while the media, along with state and local authorities, have "a choice of [other] scandals to investigate."

Finally, the CA7 rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the law was underinclusive for failing to regulate absentee voters since it would have been meaningless to require absentee voters to mail in a photo-ID, as poll workers would have  been unable to match the picture to the voter's face.

Similar disputes have arisen throughout the country, with outcomes usually siding along party lines. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will rise above this partisan debate and resolve the controversy fairly and squarely. (Yeah, right.)

To view a copy of the CA7's decision, please use this link: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

---------------------------

*Prior to the law's passage, at their local polling places, Indiana voters were only required to provide their signatures, which were then compared to those on file.

Categories: