Indiana Photo Identification Law Deemed Unconstitutionaln

Indiana Appeal Court has ruled Indiana Photo Identification Law violates Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 2. and must be declared void because it regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial. The ruling comes after three years of fighting the law including going as high as the United State Supreme Court law as infringing on the rights of voters. This time the Women League of Voters challenged the law under equal protection.

On July 29, 2008, the League filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that the Voter ID Law violates Article 2, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Specifically, the League contended in Count I that the Voter ID Law imposed a “new substantive qualification on the right to vote, not authorized by the Indiana Constitution.” (Appellant‟s App. p. 6). The League acknowledged that, pursuant to 140 Indiana Administrative Code §7-4-3, Indiana offers free identification to qualified voters who are able to establish their residence and identity by way of an original or certified copy of their birth certificate, certificate of naturalization, United States veterans photo identification, United States military photo identification, or a United States passport. However, the League alleged that “Indiana counties charge between $3 to $12 for a birth certificate, and in some other States the cost is much higher. The total fees for a U.S. passport are approximately $100.” (Appellant‟s App. p. 4).

However, Indiana Court of Appeal, weighed in on, whether or not the requirement to produce a photo identification was an added qualifier that was not included in the original law.

The Voter I.D. law violates Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 23, and must be declared void because it regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial.
Reversed and remanded.

The principle is elementary that when the Constitution defines the qualification of voters, that qualification can not be added to or changed by legislative enactment.

The Indiana Supreme Court have upheld that its legislatures can regulate through registration of voters,

..registration laws may be supported.. that they do not impair or abridge the elector‟s privilege but merely regulate its exercise by requiring evidence of the right. The fact that a constitutionally qualified voter may be prevented from voting through failure to comply with the law does not necessarily invalidate it, provided he be afforded a reasonable opportunity to register before the election.

The Indiana Appeal court determined that the Indiana Supreme Court overturned its own ruling and decided that the legislature could go as far as requiring voters to register and not be in violation of the Constituting.

However, the equal protection issue was still at the foot of the Appellant Court, “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled that absentee ballot would not suffer certain scrutiny

The crux of the League‟s contention is that mail-in voters are not required by law to execute an affidavit regarding their identity, but in-person voters are required to produce a government issued photo identification card which contains an expiration date.

Indiana Appellant Court agreed.

The Appellant Court found statutes favoring disabled and elderly living at a state facility and a polling place in violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, we conclude that Indiana Code sections 3-10-1-7.2 and 3-11-8-25.1 violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Indiana Governor Mitchell Daniel was reported in the newspaper as calling the 3-0 ruling judicial arrogance. One could read this to mean that Damiel believed that Indiana Appellant judges have a lot of nerves of challenging the United States Supereme Court Justices.