Indiana Voter ID (Amicus Counsel)

Despite vociferous concerns expressed by representatives of traditionally marginalized voter groups, the United States Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana state law that requires voters to present photo identification at the polls on Election Day. In the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, the Court concluded that Indiana’s photo ID requirement, which provided for free identification cards and made exceptions for indigent voters and nursing home residents, did not burden voters.

MALDEF filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case, arguing that the Indiana law should be struck down as unconstitutional.

This decision will potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. In fact, in May 2008, several nuns in their 80s and 90s were blocked from voting in Indiana’s primary election because they did not have current photo identification.

U.S. Supreme Court Fails America Voters With Indiana Voter ID Case Decision

Court ruling could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters in Indiana and sets precedent for other states with similar laws

April 28, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision upholding a state law in Indiana requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls on Election Day. The Court concluded that Indiana's photo ID requirement, which provided for free identification cards and made exceptions for indigent voters and nursing home residents, did not burden voters on the whole. MALDEF had filed a friend of the court brief in the case, arguing that the Indiana law should be struck down as unconstitutional.

“The decision may open the door to more restrictions just as the Latino vote is becoming powerful if not pivotal in 2008. As MALDEF continues the fight to protect the right to vote in courts and legislatures across the country, Latinos will not be deterred from exercising our rights as citizens on Election Day. This decision will mobilize the community,” said MALDEF President and General Counsel, John Trasviña.

The 6-to-3 Supreme Court ruling was one of the most anticipated election-law cases since the 2000 Gore-Bush decision. The Supreme Court decision will potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters during Election Day and eight days before the Indiana Primary.