Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: April 2, 2005 / April 28, 2008
State: Indiana
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) (Case 1:05-cv-00634); U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (Case 06-2218); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 07-25)

Issue:

Whether Indiana's statute requiring state-issued photographic voter identification is constitutional.

Status:

Judgment entered by 7th Circuit upholding the Indiana Photo ID Law, 1/4/07. Petition for rehearing filed denied. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with U.S. Supreme Court, 7/2/07. Certiorari granted 9/25/07. The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on 1/9/08.

Case Summary

In this case, the Indiana Democratic Party, the Marion Democratic Central Committee and League of Women Voters ("Plaintiffs"), are challenging Indiana's new voter identification scheme.

This law requires a voter to show valid photographic identification before casting a ballot. When voters do not have valid identification, they may cast a provisional ballot and have until the second Monday after the election to provide valid identification and sign an affidavit affirming they are the person who cast the provisional vote, or sign an affidavit claiming indigence or religious objection to having their photograph taken.

The Plaintiffs assert that there are four problems with this system: (1) the cost of the identification, travel and birth certificate required to obtain identification constitute a poll tax; (2) the need to go to the county election board to sign an affidavit constitutes an added unnecessary burden; (3) the regulations do not apply to all voters, namely absentee voters, giving rise to disparate treatment; and, (4) many of the Indiana Bureaus of Motor Vehicles, the only location to obtain valid identification, are difficult to get to, especially in rural counties.

Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of this regulation and declaratory relief stating that the regulation violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Defendants, Secretary of State and the co-directors of the Indiana Election Division of the Secretary of State's office, claim they have no responsibility for enforcement of these regulations and cannot remedy the problem should judgment be granted against them, making them improper parties to this action. All Defendants, including the Marion County Elections Board, are claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity in this action.

Commentary

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Litigation