Indiana Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law <'"http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/us&pos=Frame4A&sn2=49a9ec0b/60172910&sn1=3558a2a7/137a9c9e&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077c_nyt5&ad=Adam_120x60_c_nowplaying&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight>
By <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/john_schwartz/index.html?inline=nyt-per>JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: September 17, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/18voter.html An Indiana appellate court on Thursday struck down a state law requiring voters to show identification - a law that the <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>United States Supreme Court declared constitutional just last year. The court said the law violated the Indiana constitution by not treating all voters impartially. The state legislature passed the voter ID law in 2005, and it was challenged in federal court. The Supreme Court found the law constitutional in April 2008. In July of that year, however, the <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/league_of_women_voters/index.html?inline=nyt-org>League of Women Voters brought a new suit in state court. Thursday's decision, then, had a sense of déjà vu for some, but with a different outcome. "The court here accepted a lot of the arguments that were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, "so it's like a second bite of the apple." The major difference between Thursday's <http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09170901par.pdf>state court decision and the Supreme Court's decision in <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-21.html&;>Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is that the state court was interpreting the state constitution, while the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution of the United States. Generally, state courts are given the last word in interpreting their own constitutions. Indiana's "Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause" is similar to the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. But the unanimous three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals found that the voter ID law violated the guarantee of equal protection for all citizens because it did not require mail-in voters and residents of some nursing homes to produce state-approved identification. Under Indiana law, the court said, it could be reasonable to regulate absentee balloting more stringently than in-person balloting. But the voter ID law does the opposite, the court argued, and "imposes a less stringent requirement for absentee voters than for those voting in person." Indiana officials ridiculed the decision and said it would be appealed to the state Supreme Court. During a <http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Audio/091709_media_availability.MP3>news conferenceon Thursday, Gov. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/mitchell_e_jr_daniels/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Mitch Daniels, a Republican, attacked the court of appeals decision as "preposterous," and told reporters "there's nothing in the Indiana Constitution that goes beyond what the federal Constitution provides here." He predicted that it would be overturned, saying, "This decision will be a footnote to history, eventually." But Daniel P. Tokaji, an associate professor at <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/ohio_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said that the Indiana Constitution "does indeed provide broader protection for voting rights" than the federal Constitution, and suggested the judges did not believe the law was intended to reduce fraud. Voter ID laws have been a contentious issue in state legislatures around the country. They are largely supported by Republican lawmakers and conservative groups, who say the laws are necessary to combat voter fraud. Critics of voter ID legislation, including many Democratic lawmakers, say that the laws are designed to reduce the participation of low-income voters, and argue that while fraudulent names on voter rolls in registration drives may not be uncommon, few instances of actual fraud at the polls by imposters have been detected. Professor Hasen said the decision, and a similar case in Missouri in 2006, suggests that the federal courts, once a bastion of voters' rights, could be taking a back seat to more liberal state courts as the Supreme Court hardens along conservative lines. Michael J. Pitts, an associate professor at the <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/indiana_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Indiana University School of Law, agreed. "The state courts are much more amenable to these kinds of lawsuits than the federal courts are, and this is where these battles are going to be played out," he said --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
