Question Presented: Whether an
Why This Matters: Since Bush v. Gore, 531
By all accounts, Crawford v. Marion County is a prime example of Professor Hasen’s observation. Very clearly, Democrats support the Petitioners, who want the Voter ID Law overturned. They argue the law is merely a Republican ploy to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, who traditionally vote Democratic.
Republicans, meanwhile, supporting the Respondents, overwhelmingly want the Voter ID Law affirmed. They state there is no bias and the Voter ID Law is merely a mechanism to prevent Democrats from committing voter fraud.
This case is important because the Court’s ruling could potentially reinforce or potentially relieve the public’s opinion of the court’s partisan, or non-partisan, role in the political elections. With opinions divided by party lines, the court must tread very carefully to come to a decision that is both legally and socially acceptable in order to uphold the integrity of the Court. A failure in this regard could turn a closely watched Crawford decision into another Bush v. Gore: an opinion many in
The Court must also show unity and bi-partisanship in their decision. Crawford must cross the Bush v. Gore party lines. As the
First, the Petitioners have no standing under Article III because Petitioners have not identified any people unable to vote because of the Voter ID Law.
Second, the Voter ID Law does not impose a “severe burden” on the right to vote and there is no discrimination against minorities, Democrats, “non-drivers,” urban dwellers, the elderly, the poor, the homeless, the disabled, or anyone else.
Third, the Voter ID Law is a reasonable effort to combat in-person voter fraud, which has historically existed in
First, they, indeed, have standing. Indiana State Representative, William Crawford, has standing to assert the interests of their constituents; as does the ACLU for its members.
Second, the Voter ID Law imposes a severe burden to those trying to exercise their right to vote: the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and minorities, among other groups.
Third, there is no evidence of any in-person voter impersonation fraud in
Fourth, the Voter ID Law is not narrowly tailored enough to the State’s interests.