Supreme Court To Hear Indiana Voter ID Suit

WASHINGTON -- Opponents of an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo IDs before casting ballots will get another chance to have it struck down now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments challenging the law.

The court agreed Tuesday to decide whether identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities from voting. It will hear arguments in the Indiana case early next year, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

---

Analysis: Capitol WatchBlog

---

The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud. But the state Democratic Party, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and other civil rights groups have complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those targeted voters tend to be Democrats.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law passed, Indiana voters only had to sign poll books at the polling place, where photo copies of their signatures were kept on file for comparison.

Bill Groth, an attorney who has represented the state party in the case, said the Supreme Court has guarded the right to vote more seriously than some lower courts.

"The court has over and over stressed that the right to vote should be protected, and any state law that burdens that right should be carefully and meticulously reviewed," Groth said.

Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican and defendant in the case, said he was confident the law would be upheld.

"This case has been through the courts and more importantly, it's been in the court called Election Day," he said. "A hearing by the United States Supreme Court will only add to the confidence that Indiana voters have already been given by this common sense, no cost law that creates a level playing field for all voters."

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia's law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

Election law experts had urged the Supreme Court to take the Indiana case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement. "The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall," said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan.

The court is expected to issue a decision by late June 2008, in time for the November general election, which includes the race for president.

Indiana's law requires voters to show a government-issued ID, with some exceptions for absentee ballots, the indigent and those with a religious objection to being photographed. It was enacted in 2005, when Republicans controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor's office.

It was upheld by the 7th Circuit in January.

"The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes," Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, "Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic."

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said he believed Indiana's voter ID law was the strictest in the nation.

"The point of this case is that we're saying on the one hand that the right to vote is the most important right, and on the other hand we're allowing these laws to inhibit people to vote," he said.

Rokita said the law strikes a needed balance between integrity and accessibility, and the law has worked in five elections -- two of them special, local elections -- since it was enacted.

"The point is this is raising voter confidence," he said. "You can vote with confidence knowing your vote will like everybody else's," he said.

The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in advance of the start of its new term on Monday.