New voter ID law in Indiana

From Government Technology:

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold Indiana’s Voter ID law which requires a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. The case has become politically divisive, as Republicans generally favored the measure while Democrats opposed it saying it would hinder low-income and elderly voters from registering.[...]

Indiana’s Voter ID Law

Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day. The photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It must:

1. Display the voter’s photo
2. Display the voter’s name, and the name must conform with the voter registration record
3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election
4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government

In most cases, an Indiana driver’s license, Indiana photo ID card, US Passport, or Military ID is sufficient. A student ID from an Indiana state school may only be used if it meets all of the 4 criteria specified above.

12 Responses to “New voter ID law in Indiana”

  1. matt Says:

    I’d say this primarily helps the GOP, since it makes democratic vote fraud more difficult while republican vote fraud (on electronic voting machines) remains the same, but I don’t think it’ll negatively effect the LP very much.

  2. Richard Winger Says:

    The Court did not unconditionally uphold the law. They said none of the plaintiffs was a voter who would have trouble with the law, and therefore there isn’t enough evidence to decide if it is unconstitutional. Don’t trust the mainstream media to tell you what the US Supreme Court said; read it yourself! The key sentence is on page 17, “On the basis of the evidence in the record it is not possible to quantify either the magnitude of the burden on this narrow class of voters or the portion of the burden imposed on them that is fully justified.”

    The Court is inviting a voter who has trouble getting and paying for a birth certificate (which is necessary to get an Indiana ID card) to file a lawsuit. The original lawsuit had no voter-plaintiffs, just organizations, and one voter who said he has an Indiana ID but feels insulted that he should be asked to show it! Not a very good selection of plaintiffs. The only individual plaintiff is an Indiana state legislator.

    There is actually helpful language in the Indiana decision today for ballot access.

  3. Larry West Says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the 24th Amendment mean that a state ID in Indiana would now have to be free since any fees required in voting would be considered a “poll tax”? Does anyone know if Indiana charges for their ID cards?

  4. Richard Winger Says:

    Indiana legislature made Indiana ID cards free, at the same time they passed the law requiring Government Photo-ID to vote at the polls. The problem is (1) it costs money for people to get to the offices that issue the cards; (2) it costs money, sometimes lots of money, to get a birth certificate. Also it takes time to get a birth certificate, especially if an Indiana resident was born somewhere else. The birth certificate is generally needed to get the state ID, although there are exceptions for people who swear their is no birth certificate for them. Some people are born at home, with a midwife, and their parents don’t do the paperwork.

  5. Mike Indiana Says:

    The Indiana ID law is not considered a poll tax because the state will provide a free ID on fairly lenient terms. The state provides Indiana ID cards to people who are unable to afford an ID (based on an individuals claim, no state check). Indiana allows individuals only one valid state issued photo ID so if on election day your Drivers license was misplaced and you were broke and you needed the to get a new (Free) state ID card your drivers license would be canceled with the issuance of the free ID card. The law was used in both the 2006 primary and general election, during which I worked for a county election office. A number of complaints were filed, mostly having to due with “Selective” application of the law at various polling places. These alleged that at a number of polling stations more “vigorously” enforced and or only checked younger voters. There were also a number of complaints from senior citizens who were denied at the polls because there ID’s had expired.

  6. Eric Prindle Says:

    This law looks like it will ensnare a lot of people—almost exclusively women—who undergo a name change and don’t get around to changing both their photo ID and their voter registration before the date of the election.

    My impression is that these days, pro-Democratic voter fraud doesn’t revolve around the classic “dead people voting” scenario. Rather, it seems to mostly consist of a) supervising voters in the process of voting, e.g. “helping” people fill out absentee ballots, offering to “translate” when the ballot is already in the voter’s language, etc.; and b) registering voters ineligible to vote in the constituency, e.g. convincing out-of-state students to register in whichever state is more politically convenient, rather than honestly appraising their domiciliary status.

  7. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    I stand against this.

  8. Teddy Fleck Says:

    For once I agree with thr Supreme Court

  9. Eric Dondero Says:

    This is simply the greatest victory of the year for libertarians. Now the ACORN/Democrat Party goons will be less agressive in blocking our libertarian voter drives, petitions and other efforts. Their blocker thugs can be brutal to libertarian petitioners out in the field. And they won’t stop at anything to thwart our efforts.

    Now, I suspect with their loss in the courts here, they’ll be less audacious, and a little more reserved. Which will allow us to gain even more signatures for libertarian causes.

    It’s a wonderful day for the libertarian movement indeed!

  10. Eric Dondero Says:

    You gotta wonder if Justice Thomas’s, and Scalia’s heavily rumored libertarian streak wasn’t at play here.

    I remember when both were up for their seats on the bench, the liberal media used scare tactics like—gasp—“they’re libertarians.”

    Well, looks like in the end the liberal media was proven right. Thomas and Scalia are indeed libertarians, and have just given the libertarian movement the greatest of all gifts: A shallacking of leftist Democrats and their efforts to stop us libertarian petitioners from gathering signatures out in the field.

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

  11. Eric Prindle Says:

    I don’t think that one setback for pro-Democratic interest groups will somehow make those groups behave more timidly in other areas. If anything, this decision will weaken voter rights arguments for protecting challenged petition signatures.

    The pro-Democratic interest groups, while perfectly willing to defend sloppiness and errors in their own voter registration and GOTV efforts, are the first to shout from the rooftops that the same sorts of sloppiness and errors in Green and independent petitions constitute “fraud.”

    This decision, at the very least, lends rhetorical support to the notion that there is a “fraud problem” that needs to be dealt with by forcing voters (and, by extension, petition signers) to put all their ducks in a neat little row.

  12. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yes, precisely. We libertarians abide by the rules. The Lefty Democrats, Greens, Others do not.

    So, in that sense it is a victory for libertarian petitioners.

Leave a Reply