Court sees flaws, none fatal, in voter ID law
WASHINGTON – Indiana’s voter ID law could be rewritten to be less of a hassle for some Hoosiers, a few Supreme Court justices said Wednesday, but the court seemed hesitant to say the three-year-old law is unconstitutional.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only member of the nine-judge panel who appeared to fully reject the law, which requires voters to present a driver’s license or other government-issued photo identification before they vote.
People who show up to vote without the proper ID may cast a provisional ballot, which is then counted if the voter goes to the county courthouse within 10 days to show his driver’s license or other photo ID.
Washington lawyer Paul Smith, who represented the Democratic Party, said the law passed by the GOP legislature is particularly hard on low-income people without cars and elderly people who no longer drive, especially if they have to get to the courthouse to verify their identity. Voters in those categories skew Democratic.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, seemed skeptical.
“How far away is the furthest county seat for somebody in the county? … County seats are not very far away in Indiana,” he said.
Indiana’s attorney, Thomas Fisher, said the law is important to reduce voter fraud.
But attorneys for neither side could quote specific numbers about how much fraud occurs or how many people have been denied a vote under the law.
Fisher acknowledged under sharp questioning that some people might have a tougher time voting because of the law, but “you’re talking about an infinitesimal portion of the electorate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Smith: “You want us to invalidate the statute because it’s a minor inconvenience to a small number of voters?”
Several justices seemed unsure how to balance an individual’s right to vote against the state’s need to guard against ballot-box fraud.
“Where do you draw the line?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “There’s nothing to quantify in any way the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden. How do we tell if this is on one side of the line or the other?”
That distinction seemed less troubling to Roberts. He said the government is right to be concerned about voter fraud in close elections.
Nonetheless, Roberts scolded Indiana officials for doing “a lousy job” on voter registration. The federal government sued the state for not keeping its registration lists cleared of people who had died or moved.
Ginsburg suggested there are other ways for the state to guard against fake voters on Election Day that wouldn’t cause anyone any additional steps. She said, for instance, a photo could be taken when a person registers to vote, making for a one-stop registration and identification process.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to like that idea. “That ... would satisfy your anti-fraud interest much better than the way you have chosen,” he told Fisher.
In interviews after the one-hour oral arguments, Fisher said it’s important that the court uphold the law as constitutional because voters need it to help restore their confidence in the election process.
But Dan Parker, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said that reasoning implies that, because polling places are staffed with people who live nearby, “you can’t trust your neighbor.”
More than 20 states require some form of ID at the polls, although Indiana’s law is the strictest. The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling in the spring or summer, in time for the fall presidential election.
sylviasmith@jg.net
