Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
April 15, 2006
Law upheld: Voters need photo ID
Federal judge says plaintiffs failed to demonstrate hardship
By Richard D. Walton
[email protected]
April 15, 2006
If you're planning to vote in the May 2 primary, you'll have to show a state or federally issued photo ID.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld Indiana's stringent voter-identification law. Barker said plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party, failed to back up their contention that the ID law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots.
Barker wrote in her 126-page opinion that the opponents' arguments would require "the invalidation" not only of the photo ID statute, "but of significant portions of Indiana's election code which have previously passed Constitutional muster."
A number of states require photo identification for voters, but Indiana's law is considered among the most stringent because it offers few exceptions to the requirement.
The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, a co-plaintiff, had argued that the law -- passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2005 to prevent voter fraud -- would particularly affect the elderly, minorities and people with disabilities.
They would bear the cost of obtaining the documentation needed to get state-issued ID cards, plaintiffs said, arguing that having to spend money to vote was the modern-day equivalent of the "poll tax" -- the Jim Crow-era method of keeping black people from voting.
But Barker wrote: "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting" because of the statute.
The judge had particular scorn for a report prepared by an expert hired by the Democrats that said 989,000 registered voters in Indiana do not possess a BMV-issued driver's license or photo ID.
Barker said she did not consider the report in her determination because she viewed the analysis and conclusions as "utterly incredible and unreliable."
Among the report's numerous flaws, she said, was that it failed to account for Indiana's bloated voter rolls, called by a defense expert the most inflated in the nation.
Secretary of State Todd Rokita, named as a defendant in the suit, hailed the decision.
"This is a victory for common-sense election reform in Indiana and across the country," said Rokita, a Republican. "Indiana's ID law will give Hoosier voters better confidence in the system and be a model for other states to follow. The General Assembly acted courageously to protect the integrity of our right to vote."
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said no decision had been made on whether to appeal.
Democrats saw a political ploy in Republicans' support for the measure. Democrats said the requirement would have the effect in general elections of turning away voters who tend to vote Democratic.
"The Republican Party is not stupid," said attorney William Groth, who represented the Democrats in the lawsuit. "Politically, they're very astute. I'm sure they've done the calculus."
Republicans denied politics played any part in their support for the photo ID law.
"No one has to get turned away from the polls," Rokita said in an interview before the decision was released. "There are exemptions; there are options that would allow any voter who has honorable intentions to cast a ballot."
One provision, for example, says anyone who does not have an acceptable photo ID can obtain one free from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Democrats say there is still the cost of obtaining documents such as birth certificates needed to receive the card.
In Marion County, a birth certificate costs $10. But to get one, the person must present a driver's license or other form of identification, Falk said.
"So it becomes this horrible Catch-22," he said. "And for some people, it's just impossible."
Barker noted that despite such assertions, the people identified by the plaintiffs as burdened by the law were either eligible to vote absentee, for which a photo ID is not required; already have photo identification; or could obtain an ID if needed.
"It is a testament to the law's minimal burden and narrow crafting" that no one was found who would be prevented from voting, Barker wrote.
For people who show up at the polls without a government-issued photo ID, the law provides one last chance.
Such voters can cast a "provisional ballot" that will be counted if they present a valid photo card to the Marion County clerk's office within 13 days of the election.
An effort is under way to educate voters about the new requirement. The secretary of state's office is spending $1.2 million on media advertising and has reached out to groups such as the NAACP to get the word out.
Marion County Clerk Doris Anne Sadler said poll workers have been trained to respectfully enforce the new law.
People will be asked to show their photo ID before signing the poll book and receiving a ballot, so if they have forgotten their card, they can go retrieve the document, she said.
Sadler doesn't anticipate confrontations.
"A lot of people come to the polls expecting to have to show their ID anyway. People are surprised that that wasn't a requirement before."
Republicans have plenty riding on the changes, political observers say. They administer county elections by a ratio of 2-to-1 statewide, including all of them in the Indianapolis metro area. They pushed the voter ID law through the legislature and are implementing the statewide registration system.
"The fact is that whatever fallout there is, good or bad, will be laid at the feet of Republicans," said Bill Blomquist, a political scientist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Blomquist said other states are closely following the election here. If it goes well, expect a domino effect of Republicans introducing voter ID laws in other states, he said. If problems arise, Democrats will use the example to support their opposition.
"We are going to be the poster child for the country on how a voter ID law works on Election Day," he said.
Democrats saw a political ploy in Republicans' support for the measure. Democrats said the requirement would have the effect in general elections of turning away voters who tend to vote Democratic.
Exactly, which is what it seems the judge decided also.Avatar4321 said:Im confused, how difficult would it be for people to get IDs? I mean come on we are giving them away to Illegal Aliens. they cant be tough to get.
The only people who are going to get denied at elections are those who arent who they claim... Which is probably what Democrats are worried about.
Kathianne said:I missed this, good news indeed:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d...ArtNo=604150478&SectionCat=&Template=printart
There is no need to give the government any more information than they already possess through the IRS, SSI, and census data. A national ID card is another attempt by the government to gather data on citizens. They should control the illegals with such diligence.onthefence said:Thsi is a perfect argument for a national ID card. If you are eligible to vote, then you get one. If you don't have one, then you can't vote. Any questions?
Kathianne said:There is no need to give the government any more information than they already possess through the IRS, SSI, and census data. A national ID card is another attempt by the government to gather data on citizens. They should control the illegals with such diligence.
A driver's license and utility bill would be more than sufficient for voter ID.
Any national id would likely contain chips to prove who you are, the possibilities of info gathering would be the stuff of conspiracy stories. There was a serious attempt at such after 9/11. It was shot down, for cause.onthefence said:What information could be put on an ID card that the government doesn't already know? They are already listening to your phone calls. (sarcasm)
Kathianne said:Any national id would likely contain chips to prove who you are, the possibilities of info gathering would be the stuff of conspiracy stories. There was a serious attempt at such after 9/11. It was shot down, for cause.
Now issueing such to illegals that the government wishes to allow to work here, that seems reasonable.
As I said, the government already has enough ways to process us. I don't wish to give them more.onthefence said:Sound like mark of the beast type stuff. Except that your state drivers license already carries the information that "proves who you are" in the form of a photo ID. A chip containing the same info would simply be a faster way to process it. Technological advancements aren't exactly abd and can actually help with efficiency problems.
YES, YES, THE GOP IS DOOMED IN NOVEMBER. SOMEHOW I FEEL LIKE IVE HEARD THIS BEFORE. [04/17 07:49 AM]
I dont doubt that the GOP base is cranky and dissatisfied, and that most Democratic voters are as angry as the lovely lady the Washington Post profiled on Saturday.
I look at the Post this morning, and I read:
Anger at Bush May Hurt GOP At Polls; Turnout Could Favor Democrats
Santorum Facing Multiple Obstacles In Reelection Bid; Ties to Bush May Hurt GOP Leader
Pink Is The New Red; As President Bush's Popularity Falls, the Nation's Color Divide Adds a Few Hues
Okay. Im sure thats the honest take of skilled observers of the electorate. But let me observe something.
Mickey Kaus loves to recall the New York Times story from the final Sunday before Election Day 2002, when the Times and CBS News released their final poll. They found that after months of Democrats and Republicans running neck-and-neck on the generic ballot question, the GOP had jumped to a 47 percent to 40 percent advantage.
Six paragraphs in, Times reporter Adam Nagourney addressed the Republicans seven point bounce:
That question, known as a generic ballot question, is a measure of national sentiment, and does not necessarily reflect how Americans will vote in the governor's races around the country and in the handful of close Senate and House races that will ultimately determine the control of Congress. The concern among Democrats about the nation's direction and the economy suggests that Democratic voters might be more motivated to cast their ballots on Tuesday and respond to the ambitious get-out-the-vote drives that have been organized by the Democratic Party, aimed in particular at voters who are distressed about the economy.
Similarly, the Election Day 2002 assessment of the political staff of ABC News, in their daily roundup of news and gossip called The Note, was Democrats start this day with ... a bit more mojo in the tight contests.
So, in 2002, the storyline was, Democrats were very motivated, their base was mobilized, and theyre set for some big wins.
In 2003, the biggest race of the year was the California recall; as Mickey Kaus observed, two days before the vote, the Los Angeles Times declared, Davis did get a boost this weekend: less than a week after two polls showed the recall and Schwarzenegger succeeding by a healthy margin, a Knight Ridder and NBC poll has detected a change in the tides. A month before the election, the Times reported, many voters are deciding the recall is unfair to Davis. Two weeks before the election, the Times told readers, aides to Gov. Gray Davis said they increasingly feel that they are within striking distance of saving the unpopular governor's job.
The recall passed, 55 percent to 44 percent; Arnold won 48.6 percent to Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamantes 31.5 percent. So, in 2003, the storyline was, Democrats were very motivated, their base was mobilized, and theyre set to pull out an unexpected victory against Arnold.
In 2004, John Zogby declared, the race is Kerrys to lose, on May 9. Chuck Todd of the Hotline wrote in the Washington Monthly that the election wouldnt be close and that, If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, its going to be Kerry in a rout.
ABCs The Note declared on August 11 that it was Kerrys contest to lose. The last day of the campaign, Jacob Weisberg wrote in Slate: The Kerry campaign staff is confident, and it appears to be genuine, rather than bluster By Monday evening, reporters from news organizations that have colleagues traveling with Bush started saying that the Bush folks have clammed up, or that they seem unusually tight. Kerrys final events had a giddy air.
So, in 2004, the storyline was, Democrats were very motivated, their base was mobilized, and theyre set for some big wins.
Are we starting to detect a pattern here?
Or you can go back further. Youll recall that in 1996, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle were saying, Were going to win back the House and Senate! But they didnt.
And in 1998, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle were saying, Were going to win back the House and Senate! But they didnt. (Credit where its due, they closed the margin a bit.)
And in 2000, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle were saying, Were going to win back the House and Senate! But they didnt, until Jeffords switched parties.
And in 2002, Dick Gephardt said, Were going to win back the House! And Daschle said, Were going to expand our majority in the Senate! But they didnt.
In 2004, Pelosi and Daschle said, Were going to win back the House and Senate! But they didnt.
So Im not really all that surprised to hear Pelosi and Reid and Schumer saying this year, Were going to win back the House and Senate!
Yes, sooner or later, theyre going to be right; its unlikely that the GOP will hold both houses of Congress for all eternity. And maybe this is the year. But can we have a little more skepticism? Some acknowledgement that weve been hearing these same confident boasts for a decade, and theyve turned out, cycle after cycle, to be mostly empty bluster?
Im not quite sure what it means, but there seems to be some very unusual expectations management going on from Markos Moulitsas Zuniga:
The Democratic leadership thinks that the GOP implosion will ipso facto translate to Democratic victories in November. But the electorate is universally disenchanted with politics.
The GOP has proven, time and time again, that it is incapable of governing. But Democrats have not shown they are any different. They do not paint any bright lines between them and us. And they do nothing to motivate the Democratic base to turn out and vote.
My sense of pessimism for November's elections only gets deeper the more elections show lower and lower turnout. Our supporters have stopped giving a [bad word]. They were burned three elections in a row, and seeing nothing different come from the leadership, it has become easier for them to tune out.
There has got to be change in strategy from DC. Because right now, the Democratic leadership is just as reality-addled as the GOP's.
The conventional wisdom for three straight cycles has been, the Democrats base is motivated and set to sweep the party to victory. The GOPs get-out-the-vote efforts never seem to get the same hype, although they do seem to work effectively.
Wake me the day the story is, the Republicans are expected to have huge turnout.
