Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Poverty-related issues in the news, from the Institute for Research on Poverty

State Voter ID Law – Indiana

  • Voter ID decision resurrects debate, By Bill Ruthhart and Jon Murray, September 18, 2009, Indianapolis Star: “The Indiana Court of Appeals’ rejection of the state’s controversial voter ID law Thursday has reignited a political firestorm over its merits and left Gov. Mitch Daniels accusing judges of playing politics. The ruling fanned the flames on a debate that has raged since 2005, when Indiana became the first state to require voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls. Republicans have long held that the law strengthens the electoral process and prevents fraud, while Democrats have insisted that it disenfranchises elderly, disabled and poor voters…”
  • Indiana court strikes down voter ID law, By John Schwartz, September 17, 2009, New York Times: “An Indiana law requiring voters to show identification, declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court just last year, was struck down Thursday by a state appellate court. The state court said the law violated the Indiana Constitution by not treating all voters equally. The legislature passed the voter ID law in 2005, and it was challenged in federal court. The Supreme Court upheld it in April 2008, but that July the League of Women Voters brought a new suit in state court…”
  • Indiana court strikes down state’s voter ID law, By Charles Wilson and Mike Smith (AP), September 17, 2009, Indianapolis Star: “The state Court of Appeals on Thursday struck down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification for voters, overturning on state constitutional grounds a strict law that previously had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said he would appeal the ruling. ‘The state’s long-held view is that the Voter ID law is constitutional, and we will vigorously defend the statute in arguing that position before the Indiana Supreme Court,’ he said…”