« Ind. Decisions - Another NFP COA decision reclassified | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Supreme Court upholds conviction of South Bend molester"; some comments on Melendez-Diaz' application in Indiana »

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Ind. Decisions - A different take on the COA voter ID decision

The Court of Appeals Sept. 17th decision in League of Women Voters v. Todd Rokita has been the subject of a number of editorials and analyses. For instance, here is a quote from a NY Times story written the day of the opinion:

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.”

Today the Anderson Herald Bulletin has this editorial, headed "Indiana’s voter ID law should stand." A quote:
The primary underpinning of a democracy is the notion that each eligible voter have one voice — one vote — in determining public office holders.

In order to protect the system, it’s important that the state have checks in place to assure that votes are being cast by citizens with residence in the precinct where they’re voting.

So it doesn’t seem onerous or unfair that the state require voters to present photo identification — a driver’s license, for example — when they show up at the poll. There’s really no other way to ascertain that the voters are who they say they are.

This was the basis of Indiana’s 2005 law requiring voters to present government-issued identification at the polls on Election Day. The law seems especially practical when you consider that such a photo ID is required to drive a car, ride an airplane, use a credit card, and essentially function as an active member of society.

Yet, this month, the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down the state’s voter ID law. The three-judge panel ruled that the law could not be implemented evenly because it did not apply to absentee voters.

That’s a good point. But on a practical level, should a solution to one part of a problem be discounted because it’s not a solution to all parts of the problem?

And from an editorial yesterday in the South Bend Tribune:
The state Constitution's intent is specific and clear, say the appeals judges. The Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause demands that laws be applied in a uniform and impartial manner. Specifically, the judges objected to the voter ID law's disparate treatment of those who vote in person at polling places and those who vote absentee by mail. Unlike in-person voters, absentee voters are not required to present a government-issued photo ID. * * *

Voters and election officials alike would be best served by an early resolution to Indiana's voter ID issue. If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeals, nothing will change. But if the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals ruling, the General Assembly will need to decide how to amend the law to make it constitutional, whether to scrap it and start over, or whether to simply let go of the notion of requiring polling place IDs. It would be working on a deadline. There's a statewide election in 2010.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions