# SCOTUS hearing challenge to Indiana voter-ID law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312 "2008-01-12T18:55:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/1 "2008-01-12T18:55:39Z")
In 2005 Indiana (a red state) passed a law requiring voters to present a **government-issued** ID – nothing else will do – before casting a ballot. This week the Supreme Court is hearing a court challenge, _Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,_ in which a number of organizations have filed amicus briefs on both sides, all linked [here.](http://www.brennancenter.org/stack_detail.asp?key=102&subkey=36778) [Garrett Epps writes in _The Nation:_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/epps) > [@](#): > > The more restrictive the law, the greater the likelihood that it will tip a close election by turning away legal voters–mostly the poor, minorities and the elderly. It’s not a coincidence that these voters tend to vote Democratic. In fact, the State of Indiana, in its filings with the Supreme Court, admits that the litigation represents “politics by other means.” This flippant attitude toward the right to vote permeates the state’s argument. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has shown signs that it shares the view that turning voters away from the polls is constitutionally unimportant. > > \ > > No one on either side of the issue disputes that voter fraud occurs. But study after study has made clear that documented fraud is almost exclusively confined to absentee ballots. Absentee voting is one area where Republicans have traditionally out-organized Democrats; the new voter ID laws make almost no reforms to the absentee-vote system. > > The voter-fraud argument comes down to a kind of duel over common sense. Voter ID proponents dismiss the lack of evidence; it stands to reason, they say, that if requirements are not strict, ineligible people will vote. Opponents counter that if it’s hard to vote, some legal voters won’t go to the polls. Whose votes matter? In recent years, conservative groups have insisted that precedence should go to “legitimate” voters, the kind of people who have ready access to ID. After all, Posner notes, “try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one.” The roughly 18 percent of Americans who have never flown on a commercial airline are less worthy of concern. > > \ > > The obsession with voter fraud has been orchestrated by the Republican Party, with Karl Rove playing a significant role. The US Attorney firings scandal under Alberto Gonzales seems to have stemmed, in part, from Republicans’ desire to push federal prosecutors into going after voters’ rights and poor people’s groups like ACORN for their turn-out-the-vote activities. In Wisconsin, voter fraud prosecutions netted convictions of a number of small-fish activists who mishandled registration cards and individual voters who filled out two registration cards or attempted to vote despite being convicted felons or on criminal probation. Prosecutors have lost more than half the cases they’ve brought. In Washington, where Democrat Christine Gregoire narrowly defeated Dino Rossi for governor in 2004, officials of the Justice Department removed US Attorney John McKay, who refused to bring voter fraud charges tied to the election. > > Lacking evidence, the Republicans have shifted their argument. Now it runs: “legitimate voters” will lose confidence in elections if they think there’s voter fraud, so the government must clamp down even without evidence. Unfortunately, there are signs that the Supreme Court has bought this New Age-y “voter feelings” argument. In early 2006, voters’ rights groups challenged the Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship. The Ninth Circuit enjoined the law pending a full trial; the state appealed to the US Supreme Court, which allowed the law to take effect without a trial. Some voters “who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised,” the Court reasoned in an unsigned opinion. The case is awaiting a full trial. A study has shown that some 5,000 voter registrations in Arizona, virtually all for eligible voters, were rejected in a six-month period for failure to provide proof of citizenship. We’ve had various GD threads on this and related topics in the past – [Republican voter intimidation tactics](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277079) [Why would anyone oppose requiring an ID to vote?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277531) [Can anyone name any defensible, legitimate value to “voter suppression”?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279927) [Senators Boxer and Clinton propose “Count Every Vote Act”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833) [How big a problem is “voting fraud” in the U.S.?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315502) [What can we do, now, to prevent Pubs from suppressing Dem votes in 2008?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414099) [Election Assistance Commission gags co-author of “Voter Fraud” report from speaking](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418643) [RFK, Jr.: Investigate U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin for 2004 voter “caging lists”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420050) [USA Tim Griffin/“caging lists” redux](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420582) [“Voter fraud” think-tank mysteriously vanishes](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=424335) – and in **not one** of them has any proponent of ID requirements put forth any credible evidence that persons voting while ineligible is a real problem requiring a solution. How will the SCOTUS rule on this? How **should** it rule? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/2 "2008-01-12T20:22:43Z")
There is no “right” to vote in the U.S. It makes my skin crawl everytime I hear this. You cannot be denied full suffrage BECAUSE of your: race, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age provided you are over the age of 18. Those are the only constitutional limitations. Everything else, including producing a valid government ID, is fair game… ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/3 "2008-01-12T20:33:26Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] – and in **not one** of them has any proponent of ID requirements put forth any credible evidence that persons voting while ineligible is a real problem requiring a solution. [/QUOTE] And how would you propose **proving** it’s a real problem, considering without IDs to check you have no way to prove the person is voting under the wrong name? A 20-20 undercover expose where someone deliberately commits fraud? Although I can’t prove people do commit fraud without ID checks, it’s easy to imagine they do given how voting works in my town. All you do is go to the line where your last name falls and give a perfect stranger your first and last name. My little brother moved away a few months ago, and I’m positive he’s on my town’s voter rolls still. If someone had claimed to be him, I’m sure they could have voted under his name without a problem. How difficult would it be for someone’s campaign to find out who is registered in a given town but doesn’t vote, and have other people claim to be those voters? Probably easier than hacking voting machines. As long as IDs are freely given at a very low cost (or free,) I think the SCOTUS would be within bounds to uphold a voter ID law. However, diligent efforts towards getting IDs into the hands of the eldery and poor also need to be made. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/4 "2008-01-12T20:33:43Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] – and in **not one** of them has any proponent of ID requirements put forth any credible evidence that persons voting while ineligible is a real problem requiring a solution. [/QUOTE] I don’t even agree with that analysis. You’ve simply declared your side the winner on that debate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/5 "2008-01-12T21:17:24Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] There is no “right” to vote in the U.S. [/QUOTE] Thank you for stating the problem so succinctly. [Solution here,](http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il02_jackson/050618NeededVotingRightsAmendment.html) [FAQ here.](http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingRightsFAQ.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/6 "2008-01-12T21:18:53Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t even agree with that analysis. You’ve simply declared your side the winner on that debate. [/QUOTE] Cite me, then, a counterexample from any of the linked threads. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/7 "2008-01-12T21:56:14Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Cite me, then, a counterexample from any of the linked threads. [/QUOTE] Your statement doesn’t make any sense. You’ve made a declarative statement of opinion as if it’s fact and then moved on. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/8 "2008-01-12T23:59:20Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Cite me, then, a counterexample from any of the linked threads. [/QUOTE] [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5283611&postcount=13](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5283611&postcount=13) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5350008&postcount=11](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5350008&postcount=11) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5970824&postcount=47](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5970824&postcount=47) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/9 "2008-01-13T02:57:18Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] There is no “right” to vote in the U.S. It makes my skin crawl everytime I hear this. You cannot be denied full suffrage BECAUSE of your: race, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age provided you are over the age of 18. Those are the only constitutional limitations. Everything else, including producing a valid government ID, is fair game.. [/QUOTE] You must, then find it hard to read several Supreme Court decisions, namely all the ones which have asserted that there is a fundamental right to vote contained in the meaning of “liberty,” as used in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Now, if by your assertion, you mean that no person can force a state to let them vote, you would be correct, but since you note that there are restrictions written directly into the Constitution on the ability of the federal or state governments to restrict your franchise, you should acknowledge that there are other restrictions that have been found to exist. I’m not going to bother with a lengthy dissertation on the issue; I’m sure you can find several examples without too much trouble (such as _[Kramer v. Union Free School District](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=395&page=621)_, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)). ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/10 "2008-01-13T05:55:34Z")
Good. I hope the Supremes uphold the law and do so in language that encourages other states to enact similar laws. It makes my skin crawl knowing that anybody can walk into the polls, say they are me, and cast my vote. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/11 "2008-01-13T06:32:17Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] You must, then find it hard to read several Supreme Court decisions, namely all the ones which have asserted that there is a fundamental right to vote contained in the meaning of “liberty,” as used in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. [/QUOTE] I presume that you mean the 5th and 14th Amendments of the constitution? You know…that thing written for **citizens** of the USA? So how is one meant to reserve the right to just citizens if you don’t use a guarantation\* process of some sort? And similarly, how does verifying the identity of a voter in any way remove their voting liberty? People should have to produce ID to drive, but not to vote on/against someone who might lead the country to war? - Woo, new word! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/12 "2008-01-13T13:12:05Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] And similarly, how does verifying the identity of a voter in any way remove their voting liberty? People should have to produce ID to drive, but not to vote on/against someone who might lead the country to war? - Woo, new word! [/QUOTE] Driving is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and federal statutes. Voting is. The crux of the argument here is that obtaining suitable ID can be, for some, difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. It is a de facto poll tax, which disproportionately affects poor minorities. This violates the 14th amendment. There is an additional argument under the Voting Rights Act that you cannot have different requirements for different voters. Since the ID requirement only applies to in-person voters, the law also violated the Voting Rights Act. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/13 "2008-01-13T13:20:21Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5283611&postcount=13](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5283611&postcount=13) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5350008&postcount=11](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5350008&postcount=11) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5970824&postcount=47](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5970824&postcount=47) [/QUOTE] As best I can tell, none of the posts you cite have working cites that challenge **BG** ’s claim. Not saying they don’t exist, but these aren’t very persuasive. The best one of the bunch says that a bunch of provisional ballots were accidently counted. But the law in question here wouldn’t eliminate provisional ballots. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/14 "2008-01-13T13:44:22Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] I presume that you mean the 5th and 14th Amendments of the constitution? You know…that thing written for **citizens** of the USA? So how is one meant to reserve the right to just citizens if you don’t use a guarantation\* process of some sort? And similarly, how does verifying the identity of a voter in any way remove their voting liberty? People should have to produce ID to drive, but not to vote on/against someone who might lead the country to war? - Woo, new word! [/QUOTE] > [@United States Constitution](#): > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. > [@United States Constitution](#): > > … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So the amendments are applicable not only to citizens, but to all persons living in the United States. I dislike it when people make this fundamental mistake. As for the rest of your post, I wasn’t taking any side in the debate about the OP. I was merely correcting the erroneous assertion of **jtgain** that there is no “right to vote.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/15 "2008-01-14T00:38:33Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Your statement doesn’t make any sense. You’ve made a declarative statement of opinion as if it’s fact and then moved on. [/QUOTE] To the best of my recollection, in none of the linked threads did any proponent of ID requirements cite an example of voter-fraud-as-a-real-problem that was not trivial (e.g., that ACORN crap), irrelevant, or bullshit. You are free to comb the threads for such a purported example, cite it – and then defend its probative value. Which you can’t. There is no case to make. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/16 "2008-01-14T01:08:25Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] The crux of the argument here is that obtaining suitable ID can be, for some, difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. It is a de facto poll tax, which disproportionately affects poor minorities. [/QUOTE] So your argument is that it is physically impossible for the government to give you a card for free? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/17 "2008-01-14T01:10:19Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] To the best of my recollection, in none of the linked threads did any proponent of ID requirements cite an example of voter-fraud-as-a-real-problem that was not trivial (e.g., that ACORN crap), irrelevant, or bullshit. [/QUOTE] Which is exactly what people say when defending the Diebold voting machines." If it exists, it’s trivial, irrelevant, or bullshit." ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/18 "2008-01-14T01:56:45Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] So your argument is that it is physically impossible for the government to give you a card for free? [/QUOTE] Umm, no. My argument is exactly what I said it was. Namely, obtaining the ID required by the law in question can be, for some, difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. In this case, the state attempted to provide voting ID at no cost, but you had to have a valid birth certificate and secondary ID to obtain it–two things some people do not have and would have to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/19 "2008-01-14T02:04:49Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Good. I hope the Supremes uphold the law and do so in language that encourages other states to enact similar laws. It makes my skin crawl knowing that anybody can walk into the polls, say they are me, and cast my vote. [/QUOTE] You have a problem with that. Is it really happening? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312/20 "2008-01-14T02:18:59Z")
Situation in the jurisdiction I live in: You go register at the Registration Board at your local Elections Commission office (no later than 50 days before the election). If you are a first-time registrant, you show up with proof of identity and domicile. They provide you a voter reg card with your voter number and **photograph** ; they also take your signature (or mark, if illiterate). The process is 100% free of charge to the registrant. The poll workers get from the Elections Commission a list of the ward’s registered voters, with a digital copy of your pic and sig. You show up, show your ID and sign in. They compare you and your sig to the pic and sig on the card and on the list. They then wave you in if all fine. On the days immediately before election day and during election day itself, the Board is open to replace lost or damaged cards. If election day is not a Sunday, it’s declared a mandatory holiday. People requesting absentee ballots by the deadline, will get a flag on the polling place list indicating they are not expected to vote in person. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hearing-challenge-to-indiana-voter-id-law/433312.md?page=2)