Indiana Supreme Court upholds voter ID law, By Eric Bradner, July 1, 2010, Evansville Courier and Press: “Hoosiers still must bring government-issued photo identification with them to the polls after the Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the state’s voter ID law. In a 4-1 decision, the state’s high court said the law – passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 and subject to challenges since then – is regulatory in nature and does not change who is eligible to vote. The court rejected the League of Women Voters’ argument that the law adds a ‘substantive qualification to the right to vote.’ Justice Brent Dickson, writing for the majority, said since voters already were required to identify themselves at polling places by stating and signing their names, the law is regulatory in nature…”
Tag: Voter identification
Voter Registration and Proof of Citizenship – Tennessee
- TN senators pass voter registration measure, but some fear a deterrent effect, By Lucas L. Johnson II (AP), May 11, 2010, The Tennessean: “People would be deterred from registering to vote if required to show proof of citizenship, say opponents of the proposal that passed the state Senate on Monday. Lawmakers spent more than two hours debating the measure sponsored by Republican Sen. Dewayne Bunch of Cleveland before approving it 20-12. It is different than the companion bill that passed the House 92-1 last week. That version would require prospective voters to check a box to affirm they are citizens…”
- Voter citizenship bill would violate federal law, TN attorney general says, By Chas Sisk, May 20, 2010, The Tennessean: “Legislation that requires new voters to show proof of citizenship when they register would violate a federal law meant to get more people to vote, the state attorney general said in an opinion released Wednesday. A voter-registration bill that has cleared the Senate would break the so-called Motor Voter Act, a 17-year-old law that requires states to let people register to vote at state agencies and by mail, Attorney General Robert Cooper said. But the bill does not necessarily violate the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the bedrock federal law aimed at eliminating discrimination at the polls, Cooper’s office said…”
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…”