Indiana Voter Law

It always unsettles me somewhat when it is so much easier to vote, than anything else that has to do with the state of Pennsylvania. When we moved here, I had to drive to the DMV three different times because I didn't have the 47 types of ID required. But, to vote...just sign your name!

Indiana has tried to make requirements stiffer by requiring photo ID's be shown prior to voting. This, of course, has ended up in the SCOTUS via a consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita.

"At issue... is the constitutionality of a 2005 Indiana law that voters who show up at the polls without a photo ID will be allowed only to cast a provisional ballot, to be validated later at another place only if they can travel there and then prove identity. It has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court by Democrats or their state party apparatus."

What problem to the Dems have with photo ID? They believe that placing requirements on voting equates to a Republican conspiracy to institute poll taxes affecting the "indigent, elderly and minority."

The Dems have really dumbed down the definition of disenfranchisement from someone desiring to vote and being prevented from doing so to a restriction that may prevent someone from voting who hasn't done due diligence to figure out what the requirements are.

The Indiana law is a bit onerous...it required a photo ID with an expiration date. A photo ID is more difficult to attain for elderly people who no longer drive, and an expiration date severely limits the options available to use as proper ID.

However, the states retain the Constitutional right to enact such policies as they see fit to ensure a republican form of government. This case attempts to mount a facial challenge to the Indiana law. This case, though possibly harming some, does not rise to the point at which the Justices will say that this law is "always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional."

Stubborn Facts makes a point about disenfranchisement.

Report from Alison Hayward, assistant professor of law at George Mason who was there, then engaged in a lively discussion of the case.