Supreme Court peeks as the voter's identification problem

The Supreme Court opined in Purcell vs. Gonzalez their hands were tied in vacating a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thus overturning an injunction requiring voters to show their photo Identification at the polls. The Supreme Court overturned the injunction and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal to review the findings of the District Court and provide justification or an explanation to the Supreme Court as to why the Court of Appeals did not deter to the lower court.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court gave some guidance to the lower courts as to certain facts that would be of interest in issuing an opinion on the constitutionality of a photo identification law. Several issues were mentioned such as the amount or degree of disenfranchisement that would occur with the photo identification and the types of voter fraud committed by voters absence the photo identification.

The Supreme Court neither ruled on the constitutionality of the photo identification law or on the finding of the District Court, but rejected the issue based on the error of the Court of Appeals in reviewing the finding of the lower court. Suggesting that in the Court of Appeals rush to protect voters they did not follow the standard procedure of providing justification or explanation for their ruling in not deferring to the District Court.


In the rush to the courthouse steps, it as become more than just about a concern for blocking undocumented voters from the polls, who may not be in the United States, legally. Legal residents who are undocumented are challenging the photo identification law. The Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 and the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless are suing the State of Ohio for guidance for all county board of elections or for the state to suspend the requirement of identification. Ohio request either a current driver's license or utility bill according to the Columbus Dispatch.

Ohio law is not as strict as Indiana in requiring a state of federal issued identification. Those suing in Ohio suggests that the voter identification requirement is so vague that it may disenfranchise, "students, the elderly, the homeless and members of the military..," according to the article. Whereas Indiana argued a standard of review in overturning its law that was similar to Missouri law which was overturned. The Missouri Court ruled that when a fundamental right is impinged the challenge to its statute should require a strict scrutiny. This means that the state's interest in preventing impersonation fraud should be weighed against the degree of burden that it places on it citizens to exercise their right to cast their vote at the poll. The burden of a photo identification, when other types of identification are available, is too much of a burden for the citizen to shoulder.