« Courts - "Plaintiffs Groups Mount Effort to Undo Supreme Court's 'Iqbal' Ruling" | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: "$1.3 million Allen County Courthouse fix OK’d" »

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Ind. Decisions - More on: ISBA comments in connection with voter ID decision [Updated]

Updating this ILB entry from Sept. 18th, this one from earlier in the day on Sept. 18th, and this one from Sept. 17th that included initial reaction from the ILB and a reader, there are items today in several Indiana papers.

From the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette weekly "Political Notebook" column by Niki Kelly and Benjamin Lanka, an item headed "Hoosier lawyers irked at Daniels":

Gov. Mitch Daniels had only a few minutes before he met with reporters Thursday in which to digest a briefing on last week’s surprising decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals finding the state’s voter ID law unconstitutional.

And he had just gotten in late the night before from a China-Japan trade mission.

The ruling was the subject of the first question from the press corps, and Daniels let loose on the judges who ruled in the case, especially Judge Patricia Riley, who wrote the opinion.

He noted she has been reversed by the Indiana Supreme Court before and said the ruling “flies in the face” of rulings made by better judges. When asked whether the decision was partisan, he said “transparently so.”

An item on the Indiana Law Blog questioned whether Daniels went too far, possibly breaking rules of professional conduct governing attorneys in Indiana.

Daniels was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1980. He is currently in “inactive” status because he isn’t practicing law, but the rules still apply, according to the attorney discipline commission.

And a reader of the Law Blog pointed out that attorneys aren’t allowed to “recklessly make false claims about a judge’s integrity.”

The Indiana State Bar Association also didn’t appreciate Daniels’ comments, noting in a statement issued Friday that the comments were not helpful in advancing appropriate respect for the courts and the judicial process and in honoring the separation-of-powers doctrine.

“The ISBA respects the governor’s, and every citizen’s, right to disagree with the decision,” the association said. “There are rules, however, that govern judicial conduct and appropriate procedures for dealing with complaints about the judiciary. Comments about individual judges are not the way to express disagreement with any court opinion.”

The Indianapolis Star's weekly "Behind Closed Doors" column begins with this item, headed "Bar association convicts governor of first-degree inappropriateness":
The Indiana State Bar Association took issue Friday with Gov. Mitch Daniels, who had slammed the Indiana Court of Appeals decision overturning Indiana's voter ID law.

Daniels had called the decision "preposterous," "extreme" and "an act of judicial arrogance."

Asked whether it was partisan, he answered: "Transparently so."

In addition, he said the unanimous decision was written by a judge -- Patricia Riley -- who had been overturned before and would be again in this case, once it goes to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Indiana State Bar Association found all that a bit much.

It issued a statement Friday saying that while the association "recognizes that Gov. Daniels has championed the cause of judicial independence, the State Bar is nevertheless compelled to emphasize that comments such as those attributed to the governor are not helpful in advancing appropriate respect for the courts and the judicial process, and honoring the separation of powers doctrine.

"The ISBA respects the governor's, and every citizen's, right to disagree with the decision. There are rules, however, that govern judicial conduct and appropriate procedures for dealing with complaints about the judiciary. Comments about individual judges are not the way to express disagreement with any court opinion."

Governor's office spokesman Brad Rateike said there would be no comment.

"I'm pretty sure the governor's said all he's going to say on this."

[Updated 9/21/09] This story yesterday from Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press, headed "Daniels blasts court on voter ID decision."

And today, this unsigned opinion piece in the Richmond Pal-Item that begins:

If the Indiana Supreme Court acts quickly, as the state requests, to reverse a ruling last week by a three-judge appellate court striking down the state's tough voter identification law, it could deny Hoosiers a needed opportunity to improve its law.

The Indiana Court of Appeals' ruling was blasted by an angry Gov. Mitch Daniels, who called it "preposterous."

But, was it?

What the justices of the appellate court said was that to impose a mandatory photo identification requirement at the ballot box but not have that same stringent requirement at nursing homes or for absentee ballots establishes a dual standard on Indiana voters that the court held is not "uniform and impartial" as required by Indiana's Constitution.

Given the fact that absentee voting is more prone to mischief and, in fact, the record should show, has prompted far more allegations of vote fraud, it does make sense for the Indiana General Assembly to revisit and amend the law to include nursing homes and other sources of absentee voting where ID is not currently required.

In doing so, it makes even more sense that Indiana seek to diminish absentee voting reliance by adopting statewide the early voting and vote centers concept that received very successful trial runs during the past couple elections in Wayne and Tippecanoe counties. Those casting early ballots at vote centers are held to the same stringent voter ID requirements as those voting Election Day.

Voter ID has been a political hot potato in this state and across the nation for too long. Judging by reactions to the appellate court's ruling, it remains so.

[Updated again on the 21st] The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has this strong editorial Sept. 18th that began:
A misguided 2005 state law requires Indiana voters to produce an identification card with their photos when they cast their ballots at the polls.

Voters who mail in an absentee ballot face no such requirement.

On its face, the voter ID law makes it harder for people who vote on Election Day than for people who mail in a ballot – and as the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday, that makes the law unconstitutional.

“The Voter ID Law treats in-person voters disparate from mail-in voters, conferring partial treatment upon mail-in voters,” the court noted matter-of-factly in its ruling.

Not surprisingly, state Republican officials who supported the voter ID law criticized the unanimous court ruling from the three-judge court, which included former Allen Superior Court Judge Paul Mathias.

Gov. Mitch Daniels derided the court, calling the ruling a “preposterous decision” and “an act of judicial arrogance.”

“The gamesmanship going on here is irresponsible and needs to stop,” Secretary of State Todd Rokita said.

Both noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had already upheld the law, arguing that was enough. Given their positions, both Daniels and Rokita should know that the federal courts ruled on how the U.S. Constitution applies to the law, while the state Court of Appeals ruled on how the state constitution applies. The magnificent Indiana constitution conveys more rights to citizens and, in some ways, has clearer language than the U.S. Constitution. The federal and state court issues were not the same.

Surely, the governor and secretary of state should be among the loudest voices in demanding the state constitution be upheld. Instead, both scoffed at the state judges for daring to rule that the state constitution demands equality.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 20, 2009 10:01 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions