« Courts - "Is Sotomayor’s ‘Corporations Aren’t People’ Comment a Harbinger?" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 9 NFP) »

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Ind. Decisions - More on: "State's voter ID law faces challenge" again [Updated]

Updating this ILB entry from June 20, 2008, which includes the original press release and complaint, today the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of League of Women Voters v. Todd Rokita. By a 3-0 vote, the Court concluded:

that the Voter I.D. law violates Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 23, and must be declared void because it regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial. Reversed and remanded.
From Judge Riley's 29-page opinion:
The League raises three issues on appeal, which we restate as the following three:

(1) Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the Voter I.D. Law does not violate Indiana Constitution Article 2, Section 2; (2) Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the Voter I.D. Law did not violate Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 23; and (3) Whether the Voter I.D. Law is a reasonable, uniform, and impartial regulation of voters.

In rebuttal, the Appellee-Defendant, Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita (Rokita), raises one additional issue: Whether the League's action for declaratory judgment is justiciable as filed with the Indiana Secretary of State being the only named defendant. * * *

[II] The League concedes that its first claim relies upon a determination of whether the Voter ID Law is a procedural regulation or, as it contends, a substantive voting qualification. It contends that our legislature is prohibited from adding voter qualifications to those which exists in Indiana Constitution Article 2, Section 2. However, if the Voter I.D. Law is not a qualification, but rather a regulation of otherwise qualified voters, then it does not violate Article 2, Section 2. * * *

[W]e find it apparent that our supreme court has departed from its conclusion in Morris that in the absence of constitutional provision a voter registration law is qualification of voters which cannot be added by our legislature. Because of the similarities in voter registration programs and the Voter I.D. Law, we find no reason why the similar conclusion would not apply here. As such, we conclude that the Voter I.D. Law is not a qualification, but is rather a regulation of the time, place, or manner in which otherwise qualified voters must cast their votes. Therefore, if the Voter I.D. Law is to run afoul of our constitution, it is not for the reason that it imposes a qualification upon our electorate in the absence of constitutional provision.

[III] The League contends that the Voter I.D. law violates Article 1, Section 23 (Section 23) of the Indiana Constitution, otherwise known as the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, which provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” * * *

The League contends that three aspects of the Voter I.D. Law violates Section 23: (1) the disparate treatment between mail-in absentee voters and in-person voters; (2) the disparate treatment between voters who reside at state licensed care facilities that by happenstance are polling places and elderly and disabled voters who do not reside at state licensed care facilities that also happen to be polling places; and (3) the requirements that an identification contain an expiration date and photograph is not reasonably related to the purpose of the statute. * * * [ILB - the Court in its analysis agrees with 1 and 2] * * *

[IV] The League also contends that the Voter I.D. Law runs afoul of another aspect of our governing election law: all voter qualifications must be uniform. * * *

We fail to see how the Voter I.D. Law's exception of those residing in state licensed care facilities, which happen to also be a polling place, would be a uniform or impartial regulation. Furthermore, the Voter I.D. Law treats in-person voters disparate from mail-in voters, conferring partial treatment upon mail-in voters.

It seems that the inconsistent and impartial treatment favoring voters who reside at state care facilities which also happen to be polling places could be excised from the Voter I.D. Law without destroying the primary objectives of the Law. However, the same cannot be said for the inconsistent and partial treatment favoring absentee voters who choose to mail their votes without destroying the opportunity for mailing votes. There may be different ways in which the inconsistent and partial treatment of the Voter I.D. Law could be cured, but it is not our task to form suggestions for legislation. See State ex rel. Indiana State Bd. of Finance v. Marion County Superior, 272 Ind. 47, 52, 396 N.E.2d 340, 344 (1979) (“Our constitution is clear that the judicial department cannot exercise any of the functions of either the legislative department or executive . . . .”). Therefore, we must reverse and remand, with instructions to the trial court that it enter an order declaring the Voter I.D. Law void.

[Updated at 12:30 PM] Jon Murray and Mary Beth Schneider have posted this story on the Indianapolis Star website. Some quotes:
The Indiana Court of Appeals today declared Indiana's voter ID law unconstitutional because it does not apply uniformly to all voters.

The three-judge panel unanimously held that the requirement that voters present government-issued photo identification at the polls runs afoul of the Indiana Constitution's "Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause," which provides: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Two reasons were cited by the Court of Appeals: the law doesn't require absentee voters to provide an affidavit affirming their identity even while requiring photo identification for in-person voters; and the law exempts residents of state-licensed care facilities from the ID requirement if their facility happens to be a polling place. * * *

Gov. Mitch Daniels, who said he had not read the ruling but had been briefed on it, called the result "preposterous" and "an act of judicial arrogance."

He said it would be appealed and, he predicted, overturned. He noted that the voter ID law already had been approved by other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld it last year in a 6-3 opinion.

"The legislature had every right to write that law. This decision will be a footnote to history," Daniels said. * * *

Because the newer suit deals only with state-based claims, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review today's ruling.

Instead, Indiana officials can ask the Indiana Supreme Court to intervene. But for now, the Court of Appeals' decision orders Marion Superior Court, which had dismissed the lawsuit, to declare the voter ID law void.

Niki Kelly has posted this brief story for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - here is a snippet:
Gov. Mitch Daniels immediately said the state would appeal the "preposterous decision," noting the law has been upheld by three federal judges.

"It’s an act of judicial arrogance," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court found the 2005 law requiring Hoosiers to present photo identification at the polls to be constitutional based on the U.S. Constitution.

But Thursday’s ruling was based on a review of the Indiana Constitution.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 17, 2009 10:29 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions