Supreme Court will Hear Case on Voter ID Cards

By Jacob Leon Beier
Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, North America

WASHINGTON, United States of America – The New York Times reports that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to grant certiorari to an Indiana case, which contests the constitutionality of the state law that obligates voters to present a “government-issued” state identification card at voting polls.  Indiana Democrats filed the claim, which a federal appeals court denied in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner in January 2005.

The Indiana law was passed in 2005.  Approximately 20 other states have passed similar laws that require voters to present a form of identification at poll places.  The passage of these identification laws followed the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida.  The states cite the compelling interest of preventing voter fraud as justification for the requirement of identification cards.

Indiana Democrats argue, and Judge Posner indicated his agreement in his opinion for the federal appeals court, that the laws impose a substantial hardship on specific groups of eligible voters.  Democrats voiced concern that voters who are low-income, elderly and those who lack a driver’s license.  Judge Posner acknowledged in his opinion that the Democrats may lose some votes because of the law.  But, he reasoned, “voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes.” 

The Indiana voter identification law provides, “[a] voter must present photo identification issued by the federal government or the state. Without the identification, the voter must use a provisional ballot to be counted only if the voter within 10 days goes to the circuit court or county election board. There, the voter must either provide the identification or sign an affidavit that he or she is indigent and cannot obtain proof of identification without paying a fee.”

The Supreme Court will now have to weigh the competing interests, loss of eligible votes versus the dilution of eligible votes through voter fraud, by deciding which standard of review to use.  The plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt a strict scrutiny standard of review while the government desires the Court to use the relaxed standard used by the appeals court.

The right to vote has been described by some as an essential human and civil right in democratic societies.  Though, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court stated, “The individual citizens has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

For more information, please see:

The New York Times – Justices Agree to Hear Case About Voter ID Laws – 25 September 2007

The New York Times – Fear but Few Facts in Debate on Voter ID’s - 24 September 2007

USA Today – No Court Consensus on Voter ID Laws – 1 January 2007

The Nation – The Right to Vote - 19 January 2006