« Ind. Law - More on "Shoe camera man charged with voyeurism" | Main | Ind. Courts - Madison Courthouse repair is eyecatching »

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Ind. Courts - Indiana Supreme Court hears Voter ID law challenge

The oral argument was this morning at 9:00 AM. The case: League of Women Voters, et al. v. Todd Rokita. If you would like to watch the video, access it here.

Jon Murray's report today (and you know he was there because he can be seen in the video, the reporter on the aisle) for the Indianapolis Star is headed "Indiana justices lob questions at voter ID law." Some quotes:

Sharp questions from the five justices dominated an hour of arguments today about the state's voter identification law in the Indiana Supreme Court. * * *

Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney representing the League, was about a minute into her presentation when Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. interrupted. She had begun by saying the League's contentions are that the voter ID law is an unconstitutional qualification for voting and that it imposes an unconstitutional burden on voters -- particularly in light of new Bureau of Motor Vehicles rules that require several documents to obtain a secure ID.

Sullivan noted that at least three election cycles had passed since the law's passage. "Has the use of this statute ferreted out any voter fraud?" he asked.

No, Horseman said.

"How about the other side of the coin?" Sullivan said. "Have any voters been denied the right to vote? Can you give me the name of any such voter?"

The latter question would be raised several times throughout the next hour, and Celestino-Horseman replied that the League's attorneys have been contacted by numerous people whose lack of a state-issued ID kept them from voting. Even if they voted using a provisional ballot, those votes wouldn't be counted unless they obtained an ID and showed it within 10 days -- an unlikely proposition, she said.

And if the case gets sent back to Marion County court to proceed to trial, she said, there will be plenty of time to explore evidence on both sides of the case. * * *

The state's attorney, Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, argued the voter ID law amounts to a regulation that bolsters the integrity of the system, as allowed by the state constitution. Another key issue is whether exemptions to the photo ID requirement -- for mail-in absentee voters and those who live in state-licensed nursing homes that serve as polling places -- treat voters unequally.
Advertisement

Justice Robert D. Rucker questioned the integrity argument. "There is a whole group out there that effectively has been denied the right to vote," he said, since the poor, the disabled and the elderly might not be able to afford the time or money it takes to obtain a state-issued ID.

Fisher said the difficulties have been overstated by the law's opponents, and other lawful voting regulations necessarily impose some burdens.

Sullivan pressed him: "Suppose our legislature, in light of the current fiscal crisis, were to impose a $250 charge (for a state ID) ... would that change things?"

Yes, Fisher said, but he noted that the legislature had thought of such issues when it debated voter ID.

Sullivan noted that absentee voting -- exempted from the photo ID requirement -- seemed to pose much more possibility for fraud.

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener of the Louisville Courier Journal has posted this story. Some quotes:
Indiana Supreme Court justices had tough questions for attorneys Thursday as they focused on whether the state’s voter identification law is an unconstitutional burden on voters or simply an appropriate safeguard against fraud.

In an hour of arguments, the five justices picked apart the law – one of the strictest in the nation – that requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot.

State attorney Thomas Fisher said the law is similar to the regulations that set polling hours or require voter registration – rules the court has previously upheld. He called it “another safeguard for fair and honest elections.”

But Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney for the League of Women Voters that is challenging the law, said it “crosses the line” because it’s difficult for some voters to obtain the necessary ID while identification isn’t even required for people who mail in ballots.

She compared the law to “qualifications” for voting – such as a requirement to own property – that lawmakers passed years ago but that courts found unconstitutional.

“If the regulation imposes a burden and acts as a bar … then it becomes essentially a qualification,” Celestino-Horseman said.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard said if the court finds the law to be “a qualification, it’s unconstitutional. Period.”

But there are other issues in the case, and justices probed procedural questions, including whether the league brought its challenge against the right official – Secretary of State Todd Rokita – or whether it should have been directed at county election administrators.

Fisher argued the latter, saying that Rokita only advises local officials. He said the case should have been brought against a county where individual voters had been aggrieved by the ID requirement.

But Celestino-Horseman called Rokita the state’s top election official and said he tells county officials how to implement the law.

Justice Ted Boehm said Rokita “has been pretty visible” on the issue. In fact, Rokita later issued a statement about the case, saying, “as Indiana’s chief elections officer, I am proud to defend and will continue to stand up for a law that emulates Hoosier commonsense.”

But the meat of Thursday’s debate focused on whether the identification itself is appropriate.

Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. said he’s worried about voters who might have trouble finding the birth certificate, Social Security card and other information needed to obtain a driver’s license or state identification card – especially because the state is tightening those requirements. He said adoptions, name changes, and out-of-state moves might make that documentation even more difficult.

“It’s a lot to have to go through for a constitutional right,” Sullivan said.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 4, 2010 03:54 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts