Indiana voter ID law goes to Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in the ongoing battle over Indiana’s voter identification law, which requires residents to show photo identification before they can vote at the polls. The case questions the law’s fairness to those who might not have easy access to proper identification. \nThis case goes well beyond the issue of whether Hoosiers must show their driver’s licences at the polls; it marks the first time Chief Justice John Roberts’ court has chosen to wade into an election law dispute. It could result in a ruling that changes election laws across the country and redefines the way judges look at voting restrictions, said Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, an IU law professor who specializes in election law.\nThe case in front of the Supreme Court represents a complex battle in which the law’s critics can’t point out a single legitimate voter who was kept from casting a ballot because of the restrictions. But in the state’s entire history the law’s boosters can’t name a single instance of in-person voter fraud, the very crime targeted by the statute.\nThe law’s proponents, including the Indiana secretary of state and several Republican politicians, say it works to safeguard against voter fraud, arguing that there are adequate exceptions in place to let potential voters without photo IDs to obtain them.\nThe law, which took effect July 1, 2005, allows voters without IDs to cast provisional ballots, which will only be counted if they return within 10 days with identification. Before the ID law, voters were simply required to sign in at the polling station. \nBut critics of the law, including the Indiana Democratic party and several elderly, minority and homeless advocacy groups, frame it as a partisan and unconstitutional attempt to keep marginalized, and traditionally liberal, groups of voters away from the polls.\nThe case stems from a pair of federal lawsuits, William Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party vs. Todd Rokita, that alleged Indiana’s voter ID law discriminates against black and other racial minority voters, the elderly and the impoverished. The Supreme Court agreed to combine both lawsuits into a single case.\nThe Marion County Election Board says the law has already prevented dozens of people in Marion County alone from voting. In the 2007 election, 34 people were forced to cast provisional ballots because they did not bring the proper IDs to the polls. Of those 34, only two returned to validate their provisional ballots, according to a brief filed by the group’s lawyer.\nThe state, however, maintained that there was no way to tell if the other 32 voters were even eligible.\nIn the 2006 election, Monroe County voters cast 50 provisional ballots and between five and 15 returned to validate them, said Monroe County Election Clerk Jessica White. \nBut the problem with Indiana’s voter ID law is that most people who don’t have proper IDs but are allowed to vote will stay away from the polls rather than go through the hassle of obtaining a state photo ID, a brief filed by the Indiana Democratic Party counters. \nAnd the groups that are by far the least likely to have an ID are the poor, the elderly and minorities, according to the brief.\nJoel Rekas, director of the Shalom Community Center, a Bloomington homeless shelter, said he agrees with the Democratic Party’s position. \nHe said most of the impoverished and homeless people the Shalom Center serves have lost their IDs or never had one. Replacing them is a time-consuming, complicated and sometimes expensive process, he said.\nWith barriers like that, many of the people he serves will likely just avoid voting in the next election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Rekas said the center’s voter registration drive yielded 110 new voters.\nWith the new law on the books, Rekas said he fears that the 2008 election will not see as many of Bloomington’s – or Indiana’s – disadvantaged hit the polls.\nThe decision, which likely won’t be handed down until June, could be the court’s biggest election law ruling since the infamous Bush vs. Gore decision in 2000, Fuentes-Rohwer said. However, he predicts the court will likely uphold Indiana’s voter ID law and make only small changes to the way lower courts look at voter laws.