The U.S. Supreme Court on April 28 rejected a challenge to voter-identification requirements used in Indiana and some Arizona Capitol insiders expect the ruling to have a big impact on a similar lawsuit filed here.
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court found by a 6-3 majority that Indiana’s identification requirement does not violate constitutional rights of citizens. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote that the state’s claim the law deters voter fraud and modernizes old, inefficient election procedures are “unquestionably relevant” to “protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”
According to Stevens, the benefit of the law outweighs burdens that may be imposed on voters by the law. Although Stevens noted the law does not address evidence of in-person voter fraud, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country and in a 2003 Indiana primary mayoral primary race.
Indiana's voter registration rolls have a large number of names of dead residents and others who have left the state, and there is a possibility that voter fraud could tip the scales to decide an election, he wrote.
“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ vote,” wrote Stevens.
Justices David Souter, Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed the majority ruling.
Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, wrote that he believed the law could discriminate against Indiana's poor, elderly or disabled citizens that do not drive cars. For that demographic, a trip to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles to get official identification could be "difficult and expensive."
The consolidated case against Indiana's requirement was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party, the Marion County Democratic Central Committee and a handful of civic groups, including the Indiana chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Arizona Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne praised the decision and noted Arizona’s voter-identification requirements are even less strict than those in Indiana, where voters must present government-issued photo identification at the polls.
In contrast, Arizona voters can present either one form of government-issued voter ID, such as a driver’s license, or two non-photo documents such as utility bills or credit statements that bear their names and addresses.
Both states allow those without ID at polling stations to vote with provisional ballots and later prove their identity with election officials in order for their votes to be counted.
“We were certainly heartened by the decision and heartened that the Supreme Court basically said that states have a legitimate interest protecting against voter fraud, which has been Secretary Brewer’s position on our own case here,” Tyne said, referring to a pending appellate challenge to Arizona’s ID requirements.
Opponents of Arizona’s voter-ID requirements passed by voters in 2004 have fought tenaciously, but unsuccessfully, to date to buck the laws they claim impede the ability of the poor, elderly and minorities to cast ballots.
In September of 2006, a federal judge in Phoenix refused a plea from attorneys representing minority and civil rights groups to stop the law from being implemented before the state’s primary election.
A following appeal brought to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals achieved a hold on the law that would prevent election officials from demanding ID, but the court was quickly reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And last year, a federal judge in Phoenix rejected claims that the voter-ID requirements amounted to a poll tax and violated anti-discrimination provisions of the Voter Protection Act.
But other arguments against the law “are still on the table,” and will be heard in federal court in late May, said attorney David Rosenbaum, who represents the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
The ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board means opponents of the ID requirements will have to show that the Arizona law is different than the one upheld in Indiana, he said.
For one, Indiana law contains a loophole that Arizona law does not. In both states, voters without ID can cast provisional ballots that are counted if they later prove their identity to election officials, but Indiana law allows citizens to simply fill out an affidavit, he said.
“There you have a way out of the ID requirement and the costs associated with it,” said Rosenbaum. “Here you don’t.”
Indiana also has a history of having “greatly inflated” voter rolls, which Arizona does not, said the attorney.
Attorney Andy Gordon agreed that it’s essential to prove discrimination — not just inconvenience.
That could be difficult because most states, including Arizona, make it easy for citizens to obtain official non-drivers’ license identification, he said.
Gordon, who has represented Gov. Janet Napolitano in disputes over election law, said he believes the argument over voter-ID requirements has been excessively politicized due to the “hyper-charged” debate over illegal immigration. And the controversy over voter-ID requirements could be losing steam, which might not help a case against it, he said.
“The fact that you have to show ID to do a lot of stuff isn’t that offensive to most people,” Gordon said.
While Rosenbaum and Gordon said they believe they can still make the case against Arizona’s ID requirements, Republican attorney Lee Miller believes the Supreme Court’s ruling signals a dead end for opponents of the law.
“It certainly eliminates any questions whether Arizona’s law is constitutionally sufficient,” said Miller. “It certainly is (constitutional). The question whether a state can require you to bring ID to the polls to vote is settled.”
The ruling still leaves the laws open to “as applied” challenges, in which details could make a difference in future decisions. But Miller said states would have to have to erect substantial barriers to voting, such as $300 state identification cards, to be overruled.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.