Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Promoting and protecting nonprofit advocacy for a stronger democracy

Home :  Nonprofit Issues :  Advocacy Blog : 
Advocacy Blog:     

Advocacy Blog


Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Critical Case on Voter ID

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the much anticipated voter ID law case — Crawford v. Marion County Election Board . The Supreme Court Justices must determine whether to uphold an April 2006 decision , written by Judge Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, which supported Indiana's requirement that voters present valid photo identification before being allowed to vote. The New York Times is reporting that the justices "appeared reluctant" to strike down the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?"

According to the Brennan Center for Justice , Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the country. In a New York Times article, Daniel P. Tokaji, a professor of law at Ohio State University, labeled Crawford v. Marion County Election Board "the most important case involving the mechanics of election administration in decades."

The plaintiffs in the case are the Indiana Democratic Party, the Marion Democratic Central Committee, and League of Women Voters. They assert four problems with the Indiana voter ID law:

  1. The cost of the identification, travel and birth certificate required to obtain identification constitute a poll tax;
  2. The need to go to the county election board to sign an affidavit constitutes an added unnecessary burden;
  3. The regulations do not apply to all voters, namely absentee voters, giving rise to disparate treatment; and,
  4. Many of the Indiana Bureaus of Motor Vehicles, the only location to obtain valid identification, are difficult to get to, especially in rural counties.

Descriptions of the amicus briefs filed in the case can be found at the Brennan Center for Justice's website.



Posted by Katie Clabby



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

Most Recent Entries for Advocacy Blog

New 501(c)(4) Group Files A Familiar Lawsuit

New GAO Report on Lobbyist Compliance with Disclosure Reporting

U.S. Government Stops International Charity's Family Planning Work

Early Voting is Changing the Meaning of Election Day

EU Court Says Charity Listed as Terrorist Has Due Process Rights

Dozens of Pastors Violate Federal Tax Law by Endorsing Political Candidates from the Pulpit

ACLU Launches Constitution Voter Campaign

Alabama Halts Prison Voter Registration Drive

Survey Finds Support for Law Banning Religious Leaders from Endorsing Candidates

527 or Issue Advocacy

Archived Entries for Elections and Issue Advocacy

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004