Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:56:43.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litigating the Indiana Photo-ID Law: Lessons in JudicialDissonance and Abdication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

William R. Groth
William R. Groth
Affiliation:
Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, LLP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following the 2004 elections Republicans assumed ascendancy inIndiana, capturing the governorship for the first time in 16 years,retaining control of the Senate and regaining control of the IndianaHouse of Representatives after eight years in political exile. Thispolitical development set the stage for the passage in April 2005 ofthe Indiana photo-ID law, also known as Senate Enrolled Act 483(SEA), on a straight party-line vote. Two days after SEA 483 wassigned into law by governor Mitch Daniels the Indiana DemocraticParty (IDP) filed suit in federal district court in Indianapolis(IDP v. Rokita 2006). The case was assigned ina blind draw to U.S. district judge Sarah Evans Barker, an appointeeof President Reagan and a former U.S. attorney. The same day theIndiana chapter of the ACLU filed an action in Marion SuperiorCourt, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.The Indiana attorney general intervened in both cases to defend thelaw's constitutionality and removed Crawford tofederal court, where it was immediately consolidated withRokita.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 97 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng. 2006. 546 U.S. 320.Google Scholar
Bullock v. Carter. 1972. 405 U.S. 134.Google Scholar
Burdick v. Takushi. 1991. 504 U.S. 428.Google Scholar
Bush v. Gore. 2000. 531 U.S. 98.Google Scholar
Clingman v. Beaver. 2005. 544 U.S. 481.Google Scholar
Common Cause Georgia v. Billings. 2005. 406 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Ga.).Google Scholar
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. 2007. 472 F.3d 949. 7th Cir.Google Scholar
Davidson, Chandler, Dunlap, Tanya, Kenny, Gale, and Wise, Benjamin. 2004. “Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression—Or Both?” A Report to the Center for Voting Rights and Protection, September.Google Scholar
District of Columbia v. Heller. 2008. 128 S. Ct. 2783.Google Scholar
Dunn v. Blumstein. 1972. 405 U.S. 330.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Carhart. 2007. 550 U.S. 124.Google Scholar
Harman v. Forssenius. 1965. 380 U.S. 528.Google Scholar
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections. 1966. 383 U.S. 663.Google Scholar
Hershey, Marjorie. 2005. “Raising the Costs of Voting: What Will Be the Effects of Indiana's New Voter ID Law?” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
IDP v. Rokita. 2006. 458 F.Supp.2d 775 (S.D. Ind.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indiana League of Women Voters v. Rokita. Marion County Superior Court. Cause No: 49D13-0806-PL-027627. Case pending. Google Scholar
Lerman v. Board of Elections. 2000. 232 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir.).Google Scholar
McConnell v. FEC. 2003. 540 U.S. 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris v. Powell. 1890. 125 Ind. 281, 25 N.E. 221.Google Scholar
Paul v. Indiana Election Board. 1990. 743 F.Supp. 616 (S.D. Ind.).Google Scholar
Purcell v. Gonzalez. 2006. 549 U.S. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. v. Sabri. 2004. 541 U.S. 600.Google Scholar
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. 2008. 128 S. Ct. 1184.Google Scholar
Weinschenk v. State. 2005. 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo.).Google Scholar