OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

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

Court of Appeals Documents

District Court Documents

Related Links

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Accuracy About Voting—Needed on Both Sides of Debate

Edward B. Foley

The Golden Rule fully applies: speak truthfully about voting as you would have others also speak truthfully about voting.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump video outlines first 100 day plans

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted on Fox28 about Donald Trump’s latest video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office.

"Take immigration for example, one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign, not just building the wall, but reversing some of President Obama's actions on immigration, in particular the protection of the immigrant children," Tokaji said. "There will be a big backlash from the growing Latino population if he acts too aggressively on that, something that could hurt the Republican Party for decades."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

In Michigan Recount, Conflicting Rulings from Sixth Circuit and Michigan Court of Appeals

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Michigan Court of Appeals issued differing opinions regarding whether the Jill Stein-initiated recount should proceed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court\'s order requiring the recount to commence, while the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of State Canvassers should not have granted Stein\'s recount petition as a matter of state law. Another hearing is scheduled in federal court today. The cases are Stein v. Thomas (federal court) and Schuette v. Board of State Canvassers (state court).

more info & analysis...