Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Perdue, 707 S.E.2d 67

1997 Georgia law OCGA § 21-2-417 required in-person voters to identify themselves from a set list or vote by sworn affidavit.
2005 Act narrowed in-person photo ID to six government-issued forms, with provisional ballots and a free ID option via county registrar if lacking ID.
Common Cause/Georgia challenged the 2005 Act in federal court; district court enjoined its enforcement for the 2006 primaries due to concerns about voter education and poll tax issues.
Georgia repealed the 2005 Act and enacted the 2006 Act with identical ID requirements plus OCGA § 21-2-417.1 creating free Georgia voter ID cards for county residents lacking other IDs.
Common Cause suit continued in federal court, which ultimately upheld the Georgia Act against equal protection challenges; Eleventh Circuit affirmed later after considering standing and burden.
In May 2008, Democratic Party of Georgia filed state-constitutional challenges in Fulton County; trial court denied TRO and later summary judgment favored appellees; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed for the state.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the 2006 Act impose an unauthorized voting qualification?	Democratic Party asserts Act adds a new voting qualification restricting in-person voting.	Perdue/Handel/Board contend Act governs voting procedures and is authorized by Art. II, I, I to regulate elections.	Act authorized; no impermissible qualification.
Does the Act unduly burden the right to vote under equal protection?	Democratic Party argues the ID requirement burdens the franchise of certain voters.	State interest in preventing voter fraud justifies minimal, nondiscriminatory burden.	Burden is minimal and justified; no equal protection violation.
Is the Georgia Equal Protection analysis under the state constitution more protective than federal law here?	Georgia Constitution offers greater protections and should apply higher scrutiny.	Georgia equal protection is generally coextensive with federal standard; Anderson/Burdick balancing applies.	Georgia standard aligned with federal balancing; statute passes scrutiny.

Franklin v. Harper, 205 Ga. 779 (Ga. 1949) (legislature may regulate elections without denying the right)
Griffin v. Trapp, 205 Ga. 176 (Ga. 1949) (legislature latitude in determining qualifications)
Stewart v. Cartwright, 156 Ga. 192 (Ga. 1923) (election procedure regulation authority)
Favorito v. Handel, 285 Ga. 795 (Ga. 2009) (absentee voting option available; in-person alternatives)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (balancing test for voting restrictions; substantial deference to state interests)
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (voter ID law upheld under federal equal protection)
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (district court held burden not unconstitutional; standing issues addressed)
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (preliminary injunction limited to 2006 primaries; burden considered)
Perdue v. Lake, 282 Ga. 348 (Ga. 2007) (standing to challenge addressed; injunction entered then vacated)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (establishes balancing test for voting-right restrictions)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (flexible standard for election regulations)