EPIC logo

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
&
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita

Concerning Photo Identification Requirements for Voters

Introduction | EPIC's Interest | Legal Documents | Related Resources | Legal Commentary | News Reports

Latest News

Introduction

On July 1, 2005, a new Indiana law went into effect requiring individuals to present government-issued photo identification at polling places before they could cast their votes. Before this, Indiana identified voters by comparing signatures collected at the polling places with photocopied signatures on file. Under the new law, individuals without photo IDs may cast a provisional ballot but must, within 10 days, either produce a government-issued photo ID, or file an affidavit that they are indigent and cannot afford a government-issued photo ID. 

Two cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana challenging the new voter photo ID requirements: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (filed by the ACLU and NAACP on behalf of an Indiana legislatory, William Crawford) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (Todd Rokita is Indiana's Secretary of State), which were later heard together. Indiana states that the law should be upheld, and it would combat voter fraud. Crawford and the Indiana Democratic Party contend that a voter photo ID requirement would disenfranchise the poor and the elderly, because they are the most likely to be without the means to pay for or the papers required to buy a government-issued photo ID document. Such state-issued driver’s licenses or federally issued passports require that individuals produce documents such as certified birth certificates to prove identification. Also, in one case, a woman obtained a certified birth certificate yet was not approved because the certificate contained her maiden name.

Though Indiana claims that the voter photo ID requirement would reduce instances of voter fraud, neither the state nor the courts have been able to identify one case in which a photo ID requirement would have prevented voter fraud. The few cases of voter fraud that have been documented all have occurred with absentee ballots. Indiana’s new law would not prevent such voter fraud, because it includes an exemption from the photo identification requirement for absentee voters:

IC 3-11-10-1.2
Proof of identification not required     
Sec. 1.2. An absentee voter is not required to provide proof of identification when:
(1) mailing, delivering, or transmitting an absentee ballot under section 1 of this chapter; or         
(2) voting before an absentee board under section 25 of this chapter.

On April 14, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled (pdf) for the defendants, the Marion County Election Board and Todd Rokita, Indiana Secretary of State, upholding the law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On January 4, 2007, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled (pdf) 2 to 1 to uphold the new Indiana voter photo ID requirements. In writing for the majority, Judge Richard Posner admitted that eligible voters would be disenfranchised by the new Indiana voter photo ID law, but said the risk of voter fraud outweighed. He said the law should be reviewed using a lower standard of scrutiny. "The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes -- dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote." In support of this, Judge Posner cited a per curiam opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2006, Purcell v. Gonzalez, 127 S.Ct. 5 (2006).

Purcell v. Gonzalez (pdf) concerned a voter identification law in Arizona. The Supreme Court said, "Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes would be outweighed by fraudulent ones would feel disenfranchised." The U.S. Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit reasoned that states could actual disenfranchise voters because otherwise voters would "feel disenfranchised."

In dissenting from Judge Posner, Judge Terence T. Evans, said (pdf), "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too- thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic." He continued, stating, "We should subject this law to strict scrutiny -- or at least, in the wake of Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), something akin to 'strict scrutiny light' -- and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote." 

On April 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied an appeal for an en banc rehearing of the case. The plaintiffs, Crawford and the Indiana Democratic Party, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On September 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (pdf) to hear the cases together. The question presented is: Whether an Indiana statute mandating that those seeking to vote in-person produce a government-issued photo identification violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

On April 28, 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the challenge to Indiana's Voter ID law. In 6-3 opinion (pdf), the majority said the state interests “are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute,” and the burden imposed on voters was “minimal and justified.” Justice Souter wrote in dissent, “this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without” government-issued photo IDs. EPIC had submitted a brief (pdf) detailing problems with the law. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system."

EPIC's Interest

EPIC has a long history of working on voter privacy issues, which this case strongly affects. In a March 2007 statement (pdf) to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, EPIC cautioned against new photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements for federal elections. Absent evidence of an actual problem, EPIC warned that the requirements could discourage legal voters. EPIC noted that Congress has already provided for provisional ballots for instances when there are doubts about the status of voters seeking to cast ballots in public elections.

Currently, seven states require voters to show a photo identification document, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Seventeen other states also require identification, but not photo IDs. Indiana's voter photo identification law is one of the strictest in the country, far stricter than the standards set out in the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Though supporters of the Indiana law claim that almost every American has a government-issued photo identification document, this is not true because not everyone can afford one or has any need for one. In fact, the National Commission on Election Reform (also known as "the Ford-Carter Commission") estimated that about 20 million Americans (about 10 percent) do not have any form of state-issued photo identification.

Neither Indiana nor the courts have been able to identify one case in which a photo ID requirement would have prevented voter fraud. The few cases of voter fraud that have been documented all have occurred with absentee ballots. Indiana’s new law would not prevent such voter fraud, because it includes an exemption from the photo identification requirement for absentee voters. The Indiana law raises First and Fourteenth Amendment questions and would likely disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters.

Legal Documents

U.S. Supreme Court

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

District Court

Related Resources

Legal Commentary on the Cases

News Stories

EPIC Privacy Page | EPIC Home Page

Last Updated: October 1, 2008