Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:22:56.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litigating the Indiana Photo-ID Law: Lessons in Judicial Dissonance 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 in Indiana, capturing the governorship for the first time in 16 years, retaining control of the Senate and regaining control of the Indiana House of Representatives after eight years in political exile. This political development set the stage for the passage in April 2005 of the Indiana photo-ID law, also known as Senate Enrolled Act 483 (SEA), on a straight party-line vote. Two days after SEA 483 was signed into law by governor Mitch Daniels the Indiana Democratic Party (IDP) filed suit in federal district court in Indianapolis (IDP v. Rokita 2006). The case was assigned in a blind draw to U.S. district judge Sarah Evans Barker, an appointee of President Reagan and a former U.S. attorney. The same day the Indiana chapter of the ACLU filed an action in Marion Superior Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. The Indiana attorney general intervened in both cases to defend the law's constitutionality and removed Crawford to federal court, where it was immediately consolidated with Rokita.

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.)

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