The Just Us League
I’ve been spending some time going over the recent lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Indiana over the state’s Voter ID law. Although the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the League argues it violates the State Constitution.
The League says Voter ID violates Article 2, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution which reads in part…
A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.
By imposing a voter show ID, the League says the Legislature is adding an additional qualification to voting not listed in the Constitution and therefore it should be thrown out. I agree, the Voter ID law does violate the Constitution, but not in the way the League says it does.
The Constitution says to be qualified to vote you need to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements. However, under Indiana law all your ID has to show is your photo, name (which does not have to be identical to the name in the book) an expiration date and be issued by the State of Indiana or the federal government. It does not have to show your age or your address. So if the government is going to ask you for your ID in order to vote, shouldn’t the ID have to show your age, residency and proof of citizenship?
States have always had the power to regulate the time, place and manner of their elections and as long as they don’t do it in a discriminatory manner, they are usually free to do as they please. So I argue the Voter ID law should be changed to meet the standards outlined in the Constitution.
And by the way, there is an interesting bit of irony in the League’s Voter ID lawsuit. The League cites the case of Board of Election Commissioners of City of Indianapolis v. Knight to make it’s point that any modification of voting not consistent with the Constitution is illegal. Well guess what, the point of the case was to deny women the right to vote.
Indiana had passed the Partial Suffrage Act in 1917 in order to give women the right to vote for non-constitutional created offices. However, a suit was filed to throw the law out, saying the constitution did not grant women the right to vote and the State did not have the power to give women the right to vote without amending the Constitution.
I think its rather odd that the League of Women Voters would try to advance the cause of voting by using a case that was used to deny women the right to vote.
