The Appeal of Voter ID
As you’ve likely heard by now, my Democratic friends are appealing a federal judge’s ruling upholding Indiana’s Voter ID law. They filed the notice last week. In Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s opinion, she said the Democrats failed to cite any example of voter disenfranchisement. Democrats cited some examples in a news conference, along with Howard Dean, chairman of the National Democratic Party. State Party Chairman Dan Parker cited some examples of voters being turned away from the polls, but after reviewing a memo by the co-counsels of the Indiana Election Division, those turned away may be more about misinformation than malice. First of all under Indiana law, election laws are to be construed liberally in favor of the voter. With that as our basic premises, let’s begin.
In one instance the Democrats cite a newlywed couple from Marion County who were both registered voters had gotten married since they last voted in 2004. The husband was allowed to vote but the wife was not because her name changed and it did not match her photo ID. She was denied the right to vote. She should have been allowed to vote. According to the memo, the woman would have voted under the use of a fail-safe provision in voter ID law. All she would have had to do was write the information in the poll list before she received the ballot. And later the voter registration office would have had to have changed the name. That was it.
Another example the D’s cite is a story out of the Fort Wayne Gazette where several veterans were turned away from the polls because there IDs did not have an expiration date. Assuming some facts not in evidence, I’m guessing their IDs merely had the term “INDEF” on them which meant indefinite. According the election memo, the ID does meet the requirement and the veterans should have been allowed to vote. First, the IDs have not expired and second the IDs will expire when the veterans die. Seems odd, but remember election laws are to be construed in favor of the voter.
In another example the Democrats cite, a Marion County woman who worked for the post office was turned away from the polls because her ID did not have an expiration date. Using the analysis based on the military ID card, we can construe her expiration date would be when she ends her employment with the post office.
One instance the Democrats cite, which is more about birth certificates than voting, a woman was denied an ID because she did not have a birth certificate. She presented several forms of ID but because she did not have a birth certificate she could not get the ID. This is legitimate and don’t be surprised if some changes are made in the law next year regarding people over a certain age, born out of state who need an ID but may not have a birth certificate and accommodations are made to get some form of ID.
The point of all this in three of the four examples my Democratic friends cited in their press release, these could have easily been addressed. To me it seems more about the misinformed, rather than actual malicious intent. So I don’t think the disenfranchisement argument will work. I do think the Democrats can go the legislature next year and amend the photo ID law so that these types of problems are easier addressed. I would recommend that is where my friends put their efforts. It would have a lot more appeal than the one they’re trying to get in front of the 7th Circuit.
