Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et al., _ S. Ct. _, 2008 WL 1848103 (U.S.), 76 USLW 4242, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4913
Background: After Indiana enacted an election law (SEA 483), which requires citizens voting in person to present a government issued photo identification card in order to prevent voter fraud, a political party, the party committee, state representatives, elected public officials, and nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging the law as a violation of the 14th Amendments right to vote and the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Issues: What standard should the Supreme Court apply when determining if a state’s reasons for enacting a law that restricts a person’s right to vote is a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Do the state’s justifications for requiring that a person show a state issued photo identification card before being allowed to vote in person outweigh the restriction put on a person’s 14th Amendment right to vote?
Holding: The Supreme Court affirms the Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Deciding that the state’s interests identified as justification for the law (i.e.-identifying and preventing voter fraud, a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence in the voting process) were sufficiently weighty to justify any limitation imposed on voters under the equal protection standard.
Background: After Indiana enacted an election law (SEA 483), which requires citizens voting in person to present a government issued photo identification card in order to prevent voter fraud, a political party, the party committee, state representatives, elected public officials, and nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging the law as a violation of the 14th Amendments right to vote and the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Issues: What standard should the Supreme Court apply when determining if a state’s reasons for enacting a law that restricts a person’s right to vote is a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Do the state’s justifications for requiring that a person show a state issued photo identification card before being allowed to vote in person outweigh the restriction put on a person’s 14th Amendment right to vote?
Holding: The Supreme Court affirms the Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Deciding that the state’s interests identified as justification for the law (i.e.-identifying and preventing voter fraud, a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence in the voting process) were sufficiently weighty to justify any limitation imposed on voters under the equal protection standard.