1. Lecture 49 Voting and Representation III
Voter ID Laws

2. This lecture Pages 736-741 Voter ID Laws
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)
Note: I am from Indiana and voted under this law

3. Modern Restrictions on the Right to Vote
Examples
Voter ID (Strict vs. non-strict)
Limits on early voting
Combining/eliminating precincts and early voting locations
Elimination of straight tickets
End of pre-registration of 16-17
Restrictions on voter registration drives
Voter registration purges
Partisan and racial gerrymandering

4. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- II
Background
Indiana elects an all Republican government in 2004
They enact one of the nation’s first photo ID laws in 2005 (along with Georgia)
It required voters to present a government issued photo ID to vote at the polls
Several types were not eligible including student IDs
The state BMV offered free IDs to voters, but they had to produce certain documents to get this ID
Did not apply to absentee voting, and the law had religious objection provisions
Voters who did not have a photo ID could cast a provisional ballot, but had to show up with an ID in 10 days for the vote to count
Democrats challenged the law saying it was discriminatory to those that didn’t have the necessary identification, thus preventing them from voting

5. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- III
Arguments
For Crawford (and the Democrats)
The law poses a burden to the fundamental right to vote and it hurts the poor, elderly and minorities the most
The provision ballots add an additional burden
The law is not narrowly tailored to prevent fraud as it applies to in person voting, but not absentee voting
The law was partisan by Republicans

6. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- IV
Arguments
For Indiana
Plaintiffs have not found anyone that has been prevented from voting
The law is designed to prevent voter fraud
The law provides alternatives for those that may not have an ID, including mail in absentees, and free IDs for others
The law promotes the integrity of the electoral system

7. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- V
Stevens, J. announces the judgment of the Court, and delivers and opinion which Roberts, C.J. and Kennedy, J. join
The Court finds that this is not a poll tax as in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
The state has valid interests in this law
Election Modernization HAVA and the Baker-Carter Commission
Voter Fraud East Chicago 2003 mayor race, inflation of voter rolls
Even though they really don’t provide evidence of voter fraud in person
Safeguarding Voter Confidence Voters thinking that elections are fair
The burdens are minimal and offset by the free IDs the state provides
Also, the presence of the provisional ballots
The plaintiffs did a bad job in their case did not provide enough evidence of burdens
Partisan justifications not the only ones

8. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- VI
Scalia, J. joined by Thomas and Alito, JJ. Concurring in judgment
This is very reasonable
The burden imposed is not much over the current burdens to vote
State interest in voter fraud prevention is sufficient justification
The state goes beyond what they needed to by the provisional ballot process

9. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board- VII
Souter, J. joined by Ginsburg, J. dissenting
This imposes a significant burden on many Indiana voters
The Court failed to weigh the proper balancing test
The state had no proper justification for this law
No evidence of a problem of in person voter impersonation
But many lack the proper photo ID
Imposes a significant burden to get that ID
Breyer, J. dissenting
Law imposes a disproportionate burden on those lacking a photo ID

10. Next Lecture Pages 741-755 Campaign Finance
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)