William Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

proving a burden of ordinarily bears the See, Casey Nat’l e.g., transfer.

fraudulent Roan, Ill.App.3d

Bank N.E.2d

Ill.Dec.

III. Conclusion reasons, we foregoing Affirm

For ruling. court’s

the district al., CRAWFORD, et

William

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ELECTION

MARION COUNTY

BOARD, al., et Defendants-

Appellees. 06-2218, 06-2317.

Nos. Appeals, States Court

United

Seventh Circuit. 18, 2006.

Argued Oct. Jan. 2007.

Decided

950 (and so)

ballot to do in lives a nursing §§ home. Ind.Code 3-11-8- 25.1(e), 3-11-10-1.2. The district court granted summary judgment for the defen dants. Indiana Party Democratic v. Rok (N.D.Ind. ita, 14, 2006 WL 1005037 Apr. 2006), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20321. effect, Until the new law went into (argued), Kenneth Falk J. Civil someone person who wanted to vote in (ar- Union, Liberties William R. Groth just was not for the first time had Fillenwarth, Dennerline, gued), Groth & sign poll polling place; book Towe, IN, Indianapolis, Plaintiffs-Ap- for generally “there would photographic be a pellants. copy signature [on file] Thomas M. (argued), Fisher Office of compared” by signa staff with the General, Osborn, Attorney B. James in poll ture book. Id. at *18-*19. The Counsel, Corporation Office of the India- requirement new law’s that the would-be IN, napolis, for Defendants-Appellees. present government-issued a photo Celestino-Horseman, Karen Indianapo- ID, passport license, such as a or a driver’s lis, IN, Rosdeitcher, Paul, Sidney Weiss, S. no problem who have such a Rifkind, Garrison, York, Wharton & New document, as most do. it a Nor is NY, Zubler, Wilmer, Todd Cornelius Cut- problem for people by who vote absentee ler, Dorr, Pickering, Washington, Hale & ballot or who live in nursing homes—and DC, for Amicus Curiae. anyone 65 or over can vote absentee ballot. But what about people who do not POSNER, EVANS, SYKES, Before photo have IDs and must in person, if Judges. Circuit all, they they vote at don’t live nursing POSNER, ineligible homes and are to cast Judge. Circuit ballots, though eligibility absentee re A office, number of candidates public (see quirements are stringent Ind. voters, along with organizations such 3-11-10-24, § Code compare Griffin Party as the Democratic that are active in (7th Roupas, 385 F.3d 1129 Cir. politics, challenge electoral a new Indiana 2004), discussing require the Illinois voting law as an undue right burden on the ments)? They get photo can a ID from vote, right Supreme that the Court the Indiana motor by pre vehicle bureau has found latent the Constitution. E.g., (or senting their birth certificate certificate Illinois State Board Elections v. Social- they of naturalization if were born outside 173, 184, ist Party, Workers States) the United copy, plus a certified S.Ct. and cases a document that has their name and ad in Igartua-De cited La Rosa v. United utility dress on bill. Both States, (1st Cir.2005). 417 F.3d 169-70 indigent nonindigent and the who does not requires, exceptions, law with certain (or him) can, have with ID that persons wanting to vote in person challenged, provisional cast a ballot and primary general either a or a election must days then has 10 either present at the to file an affidavit polling place government- (see indigency procure §§ issued ID or to a photo Ind.Code 3-5-2- ID. 40.5, 3-10-1-7.2, 3-11-8-25.1), 3-11.7-5-2.5, 3-11-8-23, §§ unless Ind.Code 3- either wants to vote absentee 11-8-25.1. exceedingly supporters difficult to its who would otherwise dis- though it is

Even today’s couraged America without bothering maneuver the new law from tall (try entering or even flying, Realty Corp. vote. See Havens v. Cole- courthouse in which building such as the man, one; sit, without see United States

we (1982); Boyle, Smith v. (2d Smith, Cir.2005)), and as 426 F.3d 567 (7th Cir.1998). 1060, F.3d 1061-63 majority adults consequence the vast fact the added cost not been has identification, the Indiana law have may slight and not af- estimated does A people voting. from will deter some requires mini- standing, only fect which many who are to vote great people injury. mal showing of Friends Many regis- do not don’t bother to do so. Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental ter, many register and who do still don’t (TOC), Inc., 180-84, 167, Services 528 U.S. vote, infrequently. The benefits of vote 693, (2000); 120 145 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 610 (a voter are elusive voting to individual Challenging United v. Students States rarely has political election (SCRAP), Agency Procedures Regulatory value, po- for since elections instrumental 14, 2405, 669, 412 U.S. 690 n. 93 37 or federal are litical office the state level (1973); L.Ed.2d 254 520 Avenue Michigan vote), by just decided one and even never Devine, Associates, 961, v. F.3d Ltd. 433 or bother out- very slight in time costs (7th Veneman, Cir.2006); Baur 962-63 v. from expense people deter of-pocket (2d Cir.2003). 625, 352 F.3d 633-34 voting or at from elections voting, least has Party standing Democratic also to as- in. interested some they’re much So rights sert the of those its members who to who not bothered obtain a have prevented voting by will be from the hew just ID do so to will not bother to photo County Party Sandusky law. Democratic vote, allowed to and few have (6th Blackwell, 565, v. 387 F.3d 573-74 bring ID forget but photo Cir.2004); Washington also Hunt v. see hell place say what the and not will Comm’n, vote, get Advertising go Apple rather than home State 2434, polling place. 333, 343, and return to the 53 L.Ed.2d 383 97 S.Ct. No most who don’t doubt on the ID are low economic many other standing of the vote, thus, they are more ladder do plaintiffs in these consolidated suits —can than likely Republi to vote Democratic didates, voters, organizations less cer —is polls Exit the recent can candidates. tain, Only but need hot be addressed. strong negative midterm elections show sought, for that injunctive relief is income correlation between only standing required; one with plaintiff Democratic, percentage voting Party standing. and the has Democratic percent from 45 for vot rising Democratic Benkiser, 459 Party v. Texas Democratic $200,000 of at least ers with income (5th Cir.2006); 582, v. F.3d Schulz 585-86 having an income percent 67 48, (2d Cir.1994); Williams, 50-53 44 F.3d $15,000. Polls,” “Exit http://www. below 1130, 640 1131-33 Mulligan, Owen F.2d 2006/pages/ results/ cnn.com/ELECTION/ (9th Cir.1981); Party v. see Libertarian see /US/H/00/epolls.0.html; states also Jef Cir.1997). 768, (7th Rednour, 770 F.3d 108 Stonecash, Party frey M. Class something remarkable there (2000) (tab.5.7).

American 114 Politics whole, as a plaintiffs about the considered injures the Thus the new law Democratic to our provide transition party will Party to devote compelling is not a of the merits. There polls those of consideration getting resources single plaintiff 1564, who intends not to vote 103 S.Ct. is, the new law—that who where pointed the Court to the need to would vote were it not for the law. There magnitude “consider the character and plaintiffs who have IDs and so injury” added); (emphasis asserted are not affected the law at all and Party, Timmons Twin Cities Area New plaintiffs who have no IDs but have 351, 358, they they not said would vote if did and so (1997); Brown, Storer v. are, tell, who also as far as can unaf- we 39 L.Ed.2d fected There law. thus are no (1974); Williams, Schulz v. 44 F.3d plaintiffs whom the law will deter from (2d Cir.1994).

voting. No doubt there are at least a few Indiana, people inability such in but the A strict standard espe would be sponsors litigation any of this to find cially this, inappropriate a case such as person join plaintiff to as a suggests right which the to vote is on both sides that the motivation simply for the suit is ledger. Gonzalez, of the See Purcell v. that may require the law the Democratic — -, -, 5, 7, 127 S.Ct. Party and the organizational plain- other (2006) every curiam); tiffs to work harder to L.Ed.2d 1 get (per last one cf. Burson of their supporters polls. Freeman, 191, 198, 206, 211, v. 504 U.S. (1992). 119 L.Ed.2d 5 The people The fewer the who will actu tax, Indiana law is not poll like a where ally go disfranchise themselves rather than one right side is the to vote and on the and, they to the bother indigent are not other side the defraying state’s interest in and don’t have birth their certifícate and the cost of fee, so elections or in copy pay limiting must order a a expense ID, obtaining photo a people the less franchise to really who care about of a showing the state justify need make to voting or in excluding poor people or in the law. For the fewer the harmed discouraging people who are black. The law, by a the less total harm there is to purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce against balance whatever benefits the law fraud, voting voting impairs fraud might argument pressed by confer. The right legitimate by voters to vote dilut plaintiffs any that right burden on the ing their votes—dilution being recognized vote, to slight however it is or however impairment to be of the right to vote. meager the number of voters affected Gonzalez, 7; Purcell v. supra, 127 S.Ct. at pass cannot constitutional muster unless Sims, Reynolds 377 U.S. it is shown to a compelling serve state 1362, 12 (1964); Siegel rejected interest was in Burdick v. Taku LePore, (11th 234 F.3d Cir. shi, 428, 433-34, 2000). On one side of the balance in this The Court said case is the effect of requiring a ID in that “election invariably impose laws will inducing eligible voters to disfranchise some upon burden individual voters.... effect, themselves. That so far as the subject every [T]o voting regulation to reveals, record slight. principal scrutiny strict reg and to that the evidence on which plaintiffs relied to ulation narrowly tailored to advance a show that voters would be disfran interest, compelling petitioner state as chised was declared judge the district suggests, would tie the hands of States “totally to be unreliable” because of a seeking to assure that operat elections are flaws; number of equitably efficiently.” methodological ed See also and we Celebrezze, Anderson v. accept finding. 788- her (and unlikely side the balance is vot- would be most if the On the other likewise voting fraud, the form of ing impersonation were or specifically suspect- discovered up a shows fraud which signatures, when comparing ed that is to be else—some- polls claiming someone done), as resulting commotion would district, died, too one who has left the voting. anyway im- disrupt the And recently from the to have been removed likely voter is to or in personated be dead voters, or who someone registered list to precinct acting another district or yet day. has not on election With- voted in cahoots rather impersonator, with ID, little if requiring a there is out small, to be neighbor (precincts than are fraud this kind of preventing chance house). single apartment sometimes a to busy unlikely are poll workers response, parallel which lit- One has carefully argue signatures scrutinize tering, perpetrators another crime the deny having forged some- catch, impossible almost signature. plaintiffs point one else’s impose very would be to severe criminal crime, voting see, e.g., out fraud is Another, penalty for fraud. howev- 3-14-2-12, they argue § Ind.Code er, action, preventive take (six years months to three penalty ID. by requiring has done $10,000, up prison plus fine plaintiffs argue that while vote 35-50-2-7) § should Ind.Code suffice by may impersonation problem fraud further that as They deter the crime. note Indiana, states, in other it is not in Indiana, knows, no one in anyone far as are in that reports there no of such fraud elsewhere, known many people and not are nothing may state. But that lacuna reflect impersonating for prosecuted to have been journalists’ vagaries more than the of and registered voter. investigators’ other choice of scandals to is ex- prosecutions the absence of investigate. impersonation Some voter the endemic underenforcement plained by much, not re- (though has been found for (minor they ap- minor criminal laws detect) in member that it is difficult to the at all pear public prosecutors, and studied, states that have been and those events) difficulty the extreme and average appear do not to be states impersonator. He apprehending Indiana; be- more “dishonest” than place, gives a name that polling enters the examples the notorious of Florida sides own, votes, If not and later is his leaves. Illinois, they Michigan, Mis- and include name is gave it is discovered that the he (state). souri, Washington and Indirect at person, that of a no one the dead fraud, or at least of evidence of such place will remember the face the fraud, in Indiana is danger acute name, gave that and someone did the provided by discrepancy the between it, what he the remember would do with the registered- number of listed on impersonator information? in voter rolls the state and substantial- (if living) show person impersonated might actually eligi- ly smaller number at and a up polls at the the same time esti- expert to vote. The defendants’ ble might might that lead confrontation ensue registration rolls contained mated that the call to police to a citizen arrest or a eligible million more names than the 1.3 impersonator arrive who would before high, too but voters Indiana. This seems fled, likely A had arrest him. more expert acknowledged plaintiffs’ sequence impersonated be for the would many imper- How the rolls are inflated. already have voted when person- to know, but there are we do in sonations impersonator and tried to vote arrived have not shown that there plaintiffs case an arrest his name. But either impersonations than fewer there are for regulating elections must left to eligible whom pre- the new law will states, I, pursuant to Article section voting. vent from Constitution, provides that “the times, places holding and manner of elec plaintiffs point out that the National Representatives, tions Senators and Registration Voter Act of 42 U.S.C. prescribed shall be § each state requires all 1973gg-6(a)(4), states to legislature thereof; purge registration rolls of but ineligible Congress may their Help voters. also the American See Vote time law make or alter such Act, § particularly 42 U.S.C. regulations, except places as to the 15483(a)(4)(B). § purge yet has not choosing Senators.” “To deem ordinary completed in Indiana. thing been One and widespread burdens like these severe slowing that is it down is that removing subject virtually every electoral reg registration name from the voter roll re- ulation scrutiny, to strict hamper the abili quires to a registered notice voter whose ty of States to run equitable efficient and appears postal address from records to elections, compel federal courts to re changed, only if a voter fails to write state electoral codes. The Constitu respond to the notice and fails to result, tion does not for it is two successive federal elections can the beyond question may, ‘that States in state him from remove the rolls. evitably must, enact regulations reasonable (d). §§ 1973gg-6(c), § U.S.C. U.S.C. And parties, elections, and ballots to reduce purge completed, when the likely ” election- and campaign-related disorder.’ eliminate more voters than Beaver, Clingman do, the new Indiana law will cf. Jeffrey A. 2029, 161 quoting Blomberg, Protecting “Note: the Right earlier; the Timmons case cited see also Statutes,” Not to Purge Vote From Voter Celebrezze, Anderson v. supra, 460 at Fordham L.Rev. 1016-17 1564; Roupas, Griffin yet solution, provide only a short-term supra, 385 F.3d at 1130-31. since soon purge complete as the is the inflation registration of the will rolls re- Regarding the plaintiffs’ argu- other commence. ments, nothing we have to add to the discussion judge.

The the district plaintiffs complain that The the new judgment law is underinelusive it the defendants is fails to present absentee voters to Affirmed. photo IDs. But how would that work? The voter could make a photocopy of his driv- EVANS, Judge, Circuit dissenting. er’s passport govern- license or or other ment-issued identification and it include Let’s not beat around the bush: The ballot, with his absentee but there would Indiana voter ID law is a not-too- way be no for the state election officials to thinly-veiled attempt discourage elec- determine whether ID actually tion-day turnout certain folks believed belonged voter, to the absentee since he to skew subject Democratic. We should wouldn’t presenting be at poll- his face least, this law to scrutiny strict at —or ing place for comparison photo. with the Takushi, the wake of Burdick v. Cf. v. Roupas, supra, 385 F.3d at Griffin 1130-31. (1992), something akin scrutiny to “strict Perhaps light”' the Indiana law can strike it be down as undue —and improved can’t be?-—but the details burden on the fundamental right to vote. —what (1) shows the name of The document partici- percentage The has, to whom the document individual years, elections pating issued, and the name conforms was trajectory. With that on a been downward in the to the name individual’s voter case, think states one would being (like registration record. ways looking for creative should (2) they fre- places vote at shows allowing people photograph The document with, shopping like docu- and are familiar the individual whom the quent sta- rather than basements fire ment was issued. malls tions) Yet, participation. voter (3) to increase expiration The document includes an today does Indiana law we sanction date, and the document: Constricting the fran- just opposite. (A) expired; is not society, when efforts in a democratic chise (B) the most expired after date of to expand instead undertaken should be general election. recent way go. is not (4) by the document was issued providing United States the State fig respectability leaf of law is that it is Indiana. motive behind this prevent per- fraud —a necessary to potential for mischief with this law pretending to showing up polls at the son Does the name on the is obvious. is But where the evi- someone else. regis- on “conform” to the name the voter voter fraud in this kind of dence newly If tration the last name of list? a crime Voting (punisha- fraud is record? on the ID maid- married but her woman years prison to 3 a fine by up ble list, registration name does it en is on the Indiana) and, $10,000 argu- oral up to If name is misspelled conform? ment, candidly this law the defenders of Schmitt —does it con- one—Schmit versus history acknowledged that no one—in appears form? “Terence” on one If a charged been of Indiana —had ever other, it “Terry” on the does shortened Nationwide, a violating prelimi- that law. conform? report to Election nary the U.S. Assistance perhaps minor concerns. these little has found evidence Commission make The real this law will problem polling-place fraud that type eli- significantly more difficult for some case, If that’s stop. ID laws seek to the many, no have idea how gible voters —I justification for this Is is the law? where 4 number that has been percent is a but sledgehammer to use a to hit either it wise is group this bandied about—to vote. And fly glass on a coffee imaginary a real or poor, mostly of who are comprised I think table? not. minorities, disabled, com- elderly, or some a that suspect law that voter shall I provides bination thereof. few, to challenged poll required passports at the and if in this class have any, be (1) (which $100), neighborhood if: “the only by provisional ballot in the cost (who licenses present to the and most don’t drivers voter is unable or declines (2) you license don’t drive or of needs drivers Proof of Identification” member car?) which re- cards that state-issued precinct election board determines the (certified) birth certificates. quire valid provided Proof of Identification poor, for a particularly easy it’s Proof of And qualify does not as Identifi- voter Bend, lives in elderly who South “Proof of under law. Identifica- cation Arkansas, get a certi- was to that satis- but born tion” is as a document defined certificate. copy fied of his birth following: fies all 956 Burdick, certainly my challenge I brother to agree with concerned a

Now difficult exceedingly that “it is to Posner a Hawaii law that did not require today’s America without a maneuver votes, counting put of write-in to rest mostly photo ID.” But Indiana’s law af- scrutiny applies every notion that strict to reasons, who, those lack fects for various imposes a right law that burden on the maneuverability real at all. And lest the Court vote. As observed: thinks that those have maneuver- one every subject voting regulation to [T]o ability running into trou- are immune from scrutiny strict and to that law, anecdotal this consider this ble with regulation narrowly tailored to ad- tidbit. ... compelling vance a state interest (Nov. 2006) 3, Washington Post re- seeking would tie the hands of States primary that on Indiana’s election ported equi- operated assure that elections are Rep. Julia her con- day, Carson1 shoved tably efficiently.... gressional pocket, identification card in Instead, ... considering [a] court out of down ran her house and raced to a challenge state election must law to be at her when it street site weigh magnitude “the character and Carson, seeking at 6 a.m. opened repre- injury rights the asserted protect- for a Indianapolis sent district sixth ed the First and Amend- Fourteenth term, worker, poll showed the card to a plaintiff that the ments seeks to vindi- it unacceptable who said was under new precise put against cate” “the interests requires every law that voter to show state justifications forward the State as type proof identity with a certain rule,” imposed by taking the burden its Carson, being ID. But after turned into consideration “the extent to which away, went home and later returned to make it bur- necessary those interests polling places to her vote. their cast plaintiffs rights.” den the most those people, especially Would with- Burdick, 433-34, out a vested do system, interest Celebrezze, (quoting Anderson v. thing? I it. same doubt 75 L.Ed.2d I that problems believe most of the (1983)); Tashjian Republican Party voting system persons our deceased —like Conn., 208, 213-14, rolls, registration felons machines 93 L.Ed.2d malfunction, confusing ballots standard, adopts So Burdick a flexible (think butterfly) suggestive mis- —are it, I strict scrutiny may as read still management, wrongdoing. not electoral burden, in cases appropriate where the recognize is, I perhaps

And there here, great justifica- the state’s be, may always there a fundamental ten- here, again tion for as it is At is hollow. sion between fraud and claims least, I very would apply a standard fears disenfranchisement. something here that would at least be law, nothing Indiana’s because it allows scrutiny light.” close to Applying “strict except passport or an Indiana card to standard, I prove says that a conclude potential voter is who he is, imposes tips wrong he far too far di- Indiana’s law an undue in the burden segment rection. a recognizable potential Carson, Democrat, Carolina, Ultimately, governor prevented 1. won her of South was advantage Repub- up seat with 54-46 her last over from month when he showed opponent. Although lican it was not in the station his without the correct ID to state, Sanford, Republican Mark Hoosier vote. those and that it therefore violates Four- under the First and rights voters’ the Constitution.

teenth Amendments to Petitioner, DOUMBIA,

Ahmed M. GONZALES, Respondent. R.

Alberto

No. 05-4683. Appeals, Court of

United States Circuit.

Seventh Nov. 2006.

Argued 4, 2007.

Decided Jan. IL, (argued), Chicago, Lehman

David O. for Petitioner. Lundgren, Department of Home-

Karen Counsel, Security, of the land Office Chief IL, (argued), Chicago, Douglas Nathaniel Justice, En- Department of Environmental Section, DC, Washington, forcement Respondent. SYKES, KANNE, EVANS, and

Before Judges. Circuit

Case Details

Case Name: William Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Jan 4, 2007

Citation: 472 F.3d 949

Docket Number: 06-2218, 06-2317

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.