OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

Indiana Voter ID Requirement Upheld

Yesterday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court’s judgment in the case of Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. The judgment issued by the Court of Appeals upholds Indiana’s voter ID law, which requires that any person desiring to vote in person present a government-issued photo ID. Judge Posner wrote the majority opinion, with Judge Evans dissenting. The issues between them boiled down to two: Whether strict scrutiny or a more flexible standard applied, and whether the state had any legitimate interest at all in requiring photo ID. Judge Posner rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the case deserved strict scrutiny, and instead applied a balancing test. He found that the law served a legitimate state interest because there was in Indiana “an acute danger” of voting fraud “provided by the discrepancy between the number of people listed on the registered-voter rolls in the state and the substantially smaller number of people actually eligible to vote.” Indiana’s previous practice of attempting to identify those entering the polls by making mere eyeball comparisons of their signatures with those on file was not enough to deter fraud: “[W]ithout requiring a photo ID, there is little if any chance of preventing this kind of fraud because busy poll workers are unlikely to scrutinize signatures carefully and argue with people who deny having forged someone else’s signature.” Posner refuted the Plaintiffs’ claim that there is no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana, and attributed the lack of reports of voter fraud to the underenforcement of minor criminal laws and the difficulty in apprehending people perpetrating such fraud. To the majority, the law passed the balancing test because it would help deter fraud and the disenfranchising effect it might have, if any, is “slight.” Posner accepted the findings of the District Court that Plaintiffs’ evidence on the number of people disenfranchised was “totally unreliable.” According to him, at least some of the “disenfranchised” voters chose to “disenfranchise themselves rather than go to the bother” of obtaining proper ID. In dissent, Judge Evans stated that the purpose of the law was “to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic” and for that reason he would subject the law to strict scrutiny or at least “strict scrutiny light.” To him, the asserted justification of preventing voter fraud had to be a pretext, because there was no evidence of in-person voter fraud in the record. Without any compelling or even legitimate interest behind it, Evans determined the law imposed an undue burden on the right to vote. Contributed by Nathan Cemenska and Paul Venard.

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Of Bouncing Balls and a Big Blue Shift

Edward B. Foley

It is a fortuitous coincidence that the University of Virginia’s Journal of Law & Politics has just published a piece of mine that shows the relevance of the current vote-counting process in Virginia’s Attorney General election to what might happen if the 2016 presidential election turns on a similar vote-counting process in Virginia. 

Read full post here.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign contribution cap

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion today in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down aggregate limits on political campaign contributions but leaving in place limits on contributions to individual candidates.

more info & analysis...