Indiana: No ID Required to Vote
|
Print This Post
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 Thursday that a law requiring voters to present identification was unconstitutional. This ruling goes against the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the law was constitutional. The Supreme Court decision was a 6-3 vote in April 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is not final on the matter because this law falls under State jurisdiction, and the State can decide to continue or ban such laws as it sees fit.
Republican Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels called Thursday’s decision “an act of judicial arrogance”, stating: “It would be one thing if this thing had not already been litigated from the bottom up through the federal system, and multiple court rulings – including the Supreme Court of the United States – hadn’t already spoken,” Daniels said.
The Indiana Democratic Party previously challenged the law in federal court, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution. Critics of the law claimed that requiring state or federal identification to vote dissuaded minorities, the elderly, and less affluent.
Indiana House Speaker, Patrick Bauer (D) said Thursday, “this voter ID disenfranchised hundreds if not thousands of voters. You’re supposed to treat people equally. We felt the whole law was trying to cut down voters.”
They also said that the law did not combat voter fraud, which proponents of the law argued was its main purpose. Critics said voter fraud is rare, and such a measure did more harm than good.
Indiana House Minority Leader, Brian Bosma (R), cited the law’s necessity: “In today’s culture, when we routinely show identification to board a plane, cash a check or even rent a video, it is critical that we take reasonable measures to protect the founding principle of one person, one vote,” he said.
After the efforts of the Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters challenged the law in state courts, which they won. In her explanation, Judge Patricia A. Riley wrote that the court must declare the law void because it regulates voters in a way that is not “uniform and impartial.”
The lack of uniformity in the Judge’s opinion was found in the different procedures for Americans voting in person and voting by mail. Voters by mail would not have to present identification, only those who come to vote in person. Critics pointed to this aspect of the law as an example of its ineffectiveness, citing fraud is more prevalent and likely through mail-in voting.
The panel of Judges also said the law gave preferential treatment to residents of nursing homes – contradicting Democrats’ claims that the law was “disenfranchising” the elderly electorate – because those persons would not be required to present identification.
The President of the Indianapolis League of Women Voters, Erin Kelley, praised the Court’s ruling, stating the Court has put an end “to legislative efforts to single out and burden a class of voters – those who vote in-person – without reasonable or justifiable cause and without any evidence that these burdens were necessary”.
The case seems to be headed for Indiana’s Supreme Court, with Indiana’s Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, leading the appeal.
TheAmericano/Agencies
Related posts:
- The Damaged Brand of the GOP By Stephen A. Nuño. Despite the ruling by the...
- An Easier Way to Register to Vote Teresa Hernández is a former congressional candidate, a small business...
- Federal Judge Overturns Ban on Gay Weddings in California The decision by a federal judge in California Wednesday overturned...
- Federal Appeals Court Puts California Gay Marriages on Hold The bad news for California gay couples Tuesday is that...
- Money at the Races The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that laws restricting political spending...
