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.
United States Supreme Court documents
- Docket
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari- Indiana Democratic Party
(filed 7/2/07) - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - ACLU (filed 7/2/07)
- Brief of State Respondents in opposition (filed 8/6/07)
- Reply Brief of petitioners Indiana Democratic Party (filed 8/17/07)
- Reply Brief of petitioners ACLU (filed 8/17/07)
- Supplemental brief of respondents State Respondents filed (filed 9/17/07)
- Order granting certiorari (granted 9/25/07)
- Brief of petitioners Indiana Democratic Party (filed 11/5/07)
- Joint Appendix (filed 11/5/07)
- Brief of petitioners ACLU (filed 11/5/07)
- Amici curiae briefs:
- Professor Richard L. Hasen in support of petitioners (filed 11/9/07)
- AALDEF, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/9/07)
- Congressman Keith Ellison in support of petitioners (filed 11/12/07)
- NCAI, et al, in support of petitioners (filed 11/12/07)
- Cyber Privacy Project in support of petitioners (filed 11/12/07)
- Dr. Frederic C. Schaffer, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/12/07)
- Professor Erwin Chemerinsky [applicable legal standard] (filed 11/13/07)
- R. Michael Alvarez, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- NCAAP in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Senator Dianne Feinstein, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- AARP, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- LCCRUL, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Historians and Other Scholars in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- NLCHP in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- EPIC, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- MALDEF in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Rutherford Institute in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- League of Women Voters in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- ACORN in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Professors Elmendorf and Tokaji in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Rock the Vote, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Current and Former SoS in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Asian American Justice Center, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Brennan Center for Justice, et al., in support of petitioners (filed 11/13/07)
- Mountain States Legal Foundation in support of respondents (filed 12/6/07)
- Georgia Secretary of State in support of respondents (filed 12/6/07)
- Center for Equal Opportunity and Project 21 in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Senators Mitch McConnell, et al., in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- American Unity Legal Defense Fund in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Republican National Committee in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Washington Legal Foundation (filed 12/10/07)(not yet available)
- Pacific Legal Foundation in support of respondents (filed _____)
- Election Professionals in support of affirmance (filed _____)
- Doris Anne Sadler in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Lawyers Democracy Fund in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- United States in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Texas, et al., in support of respondents (filed 12/10/07)
- Professor Richard L. Hasen in support of petitioners
- SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 9, 2008 (entered 11/16/07) [non-document]
- Brief of State Respondents (filed 12/3/07)
- Brief of respondent Marion County Election Board (filed 12/3/07)
- ACLU Reply Brief for Petitioners (filed ____)
- Reply Brief for Petitioners Indiana Democratic Party (filed 12/20/07)
- Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED (entered 1/4/08)
- Argued (1/9/08) [Transcript]
- Opinion (4/28/08)
Court of Appeals Documents
- Appellant's Brief by IN Democratic Party (filed 6/20/06)
- Appellant's Brief by William Crawford (filed 6/20/06)
- Brief of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal (filed 6/23/06)
- Amici Curiae Brief of the League Of Women Voters Of Indiana, and the League Of Voters Of Indianapolis in Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal (filed 6/28/06)
- Appellee's Brief by Todd Rokita (filed 7/24/06)
- Appellee's Brief by Marion County Election (filed 7/25/06)
- Amicus Brief by Amicus Curiae ACVR and Amicus Curiae Vincent I. Perez (filed 7/27/06)
- Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants Indiana Democratic Party and Marion County Democratic Central Committee (filed 8/3/06)
- Appellant's Reply Brief, filed by William Crawford (filed 8/3/06)
- Audio recording of oral argument (presented 10/18/06)
- Judgment (entered 1/4/07)
- Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing Enbanc by Appellant (filed 1/17/07)
- Answer of Appellees to Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing Enbanc (filed 2/6/07)
- Motion by Appellee Marion County to file Answer to Petition for Rehearing (filed 2/12/07)
- ORDER issued DENYING Appellee Marion County's Motion to file Answer to Petition for Rehearing (entered 2/14/07)
- Appellant's Citation of Additional Authority (filed 2/20/07)
- Opinion filed DENYING Petition for Rehearing (entered 4/5/07)
- Mandate to the District Court (entered 4/16/07)
- Filed notice from the Supreme Court of the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (entered 7/10/07)
District Court Documents
- Complaint (filed 05/02/2005)
- Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed 5/20/2005)
- Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed 5/20/2005)
- Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against all defendants (filed 5/27/2005)
- Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed 5/27/2005)
- Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed 6/07/2005)
- Joint Stipulation (filed 6/07/2005)
- Intervenor State of Indiana's Answer to Complaint (filed 7/18/2005)
- Intervenor Defendant's Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 7/22/2005)
- Joint Motion for Protective Order (filed 7/29/2005)
- Protective Order Approved (filed 8/01/2005)
- Second Amended Complaint (filed 8/29/2005)
- Intervenor-Defendant, State of Indiana's, Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 9/08/2005)
- Answer to Amended Complaint by Marion County Election Board (filed 9/08/2005)
- Motion to Intervene by League of Women Voters of Indiana, League of Women Voters of Indianapolis (filed 9/19/2005)
- Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene filed by League of Women Voters (filed 9/19/2005)
- Status Conference Entry
- Notice by League of Women Voters of Indiana (filed 10/7/05)
- Stipulation of the Parties (First) by the Indiana Democratic Party (filed 10/20/05)
- Attachment 1 (Indiana State Department of Health Document)
- Attachment 1
- Order denying Motion to Intervene by the League of Women Voters of Indiana and the League of Women Voters of Indianapolis
- Motion to Raise Additional Legal Argument (filed 10/31/05)
- Motion for Summary Judgment filed by William Crawford filed 10/31/05)
- Attachment 1
- Attachment 2
- Attachment 3
- Attachment 4, Part 1
- Attachment 4, Part 2
- Attachment 5
- Attachment 6
- Attachment 7
- Attachment 8
- Attachment 9
- Attachment 10
- Attachment 11
- Attachment 12
- Attachment 13
- Attachment 14
- Attachment 15
- Attachment 16
- Attachment 17, Part 1
- Attachment 17, Part 2
- Attachment 18
- Attachment 19
- Attachment 1
- Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by William Crawford
- Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Indiana Democratic Party (filed 10/31/05)
- Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Indiana Democratic Party
- Amicus Brief of the League of Women Voters (filed 10/31/05)
- Motion for Summary Judgment by Marion County Election Board (filed 11/30/05)
- Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Marion County Election Board (filed 11/30/05)
- Motion for Summary Judgment by Todd Rokita (filed 11/30/05)
- Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Todd Rokita (filed 11/30/05)
- Appendix of Exhibits
- Exhibit 1
- Exhibit 2
- Exhibit 3
- Exhibit 4
- Exhibit 5
- Exhibit 6
- Exhibit 7
- Exhibit 8
- Exhibit 9
- Exhibit 10
- Exhibit 11
- Exhibit 12
- Exhibit 13
- Exhibit 14
- Exhibit 15
- Exhibit 16
- Exhibit 17
- Exhibit 18
- Exhibit 19
- Exhibit 20
- Exhibit 21
- Exhibit 22
- Exhibit 23
- Exhibit 24
- Exhibit 25
- Exhibit 26
- Exhibit 27
- Exhibit 28
- Exhibit 29
- Exhibit 30
- Exhibit 31
- Exhibit 32
- Exhibit 33
- Exhibit 34
- Exhibit 35
- Exhibit 36
- Exhibit 37
- Exhibit 38
- Exhibit 39
- Exhibit 40
- Exhibit 41
- Exhibit 42
- Exhibit 43
- Exhibit 44
- Exhibit 45
- Exhibit 46
- Exhibit 47
- Exhibit 48
- Exhibit 49
- Exhibit 50
- Exhibit 51
- Exhibit 52
- Exhibit 53
- Exhibit 54
- Exhibit 55
- Exhibit 56
- Exhibit 57
- Exhibit 58
- Exhibit 59
- Exhibit 60
- Exhibit 61
- Exhibit 62
- Exhibit 63
- Exhibit 64
- Exhibit 65
- Exhibit 66
- Exhibit 67
- Exhibit 68
- Exhibit 69
- Exhibit 70
- Exhibit 71
- Exhibit 72
- Exhibit 73
- Exhibit 74
- Exhibit 75
- Exhibit 76
- Exhibit 77
- Exhibit 78
- Exhibit 79
- Exhibit 80
- Appendix of Exhibits
- Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Todd Rokita (Conforming Memorandum) (filed 12/1/05)
- Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Wendy Orange by all Plaintiffs (filed 12/5/05)
- Brief in support of Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Wendy Orange (filed 12/5/05)
- Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Answer Memorandum in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Marion County Election Board and the State of Indiana, filed by William Crawford (filed 12/21/05)
- Submission of Supplementary Evidentiary Material by William Crawford (filed 12/21/05)
- Submission of Corrected Supplementary Evidentiary Material by William Crawford (filed 12/21/05)
- Joint Motion to Strike Portions of the Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment and Appendix of Evidence of the State of Indiana, the Indiana Secretary of State, and the Co-directors of the Indiana Election Division, by all Plaintiffs (filed 12/21/05)
- Brief in Support of Joint Motion to Strike Portions of the Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment and Appendix of Evidence of the State of Indiana, the Indiana Secretary of State, and the Co-directors of the Indiana Election Division, by all Plaintiffs (filed 12/21/05)
- Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Indiana Democratic Party, Marion County Democratic Central Committee (filed 12/21/05)
- Appendix of Exhibits in Support regarding Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Indiana Democratic Party, Marion County Democratic Central Committee (filed 12/21/05)
- Response in Opposition regarding Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Wendy Orange, filed by the State of Indiana (filed 12/21/05)
- Reply in Support regarding Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Wendy Orange, filed by the Indiana Democratic Party (filed 1/3/06)
- Marion County Election Board's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/11/06)
- State Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/11/06)
- Designation of Additional Evidence in Support of State Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/11/06)
- Motion for Oral Argument (filed 1/11/06)
- Response in opposition to Joint Motion to Strike Portions of the Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment and Appendix of Evidence of the State of Indiana, the Indiana Secretary of State, and the Co-directors of the Indiana Election Division (filed 1/11/06)
- Reply in support of Joint Motion to Strike Portions of the Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment and Appendix of Evidence of the State of Indiana, the Indiana Secretary of State, and the Co-directors of the Indiana Election Division (filed 1/23/06)
- Entry granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (entered 4/14/06)
- Judgment (entered 4/14/06)
- Notice of Appeal (filed 4/24/06)
- Docketing Statement (filed 4/24/06)
- Motion to Supplement Record by Plaintiffs (filed 5/1/06)
- Notice of Appeal by Indiana Democratic Party (filed 5/5/06)
Related Links
- Justices indicate they may uphold voter ID rules, New York Times (1/10/08)
- Supreme Court will hear voter ID case, Los Angeles Times (1/7/08)
- Voter ID laws are set to face crucial test, New York Times (1/7/08)
- Voter ID case could affect election laws, USA Today (1/6/08)
- Appeals Court upholds law requiring a photo ID to vote, Los Angeles Times (1/5/07) [no longer available online]
- Indiana's voter ID law upheld, Indianapolis Star (1/4/07) [no longer available online]
- Election guide: Indiana's voter ID law, Indianapolis Star (10/24/06)
- Judge wonders about ID proof, Fort Wayne News-Sentinel (10/19/06) [no longer available online]
- ID and voter confidence, Fort Wayne News-Sentinel (10/19/06) [no longer available online]
- Want to vote? Get your photo ID ready, Indianapolis Star (10/19/06) [no longer available online]
- Judges question criticism of voter ID, Indianapolis Star (10/18/06) [no longer available online]
- Voter ID case goes to federal appeals, Fort Wayne News Sentinel (10/18/06) [no longer available online]
- Judges to hear appeal of state's voter ID law, Indianapolis Star (10/18/06) [no longer available online]
- ACVR LF issues statement on Indiana voter identification decision (4/20/06)
- The effect of Indiana court ruling on Georgia voting bill, S.B. 84 (4/20/06)
- e-Book: Polling Place Rules
Commentary
Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead
Justin Levitt
June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have "won," and now need only run out the clock.
more commentary...