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

Hearing on FEC Nominees

FISA Negotiations Continue

Librarians on the Hill to Discuss FISA and Other Issues

Forum on Rules for Tax-Exempt Organizations during an Election Year

Federal Trade Commission Seeks Authority Over 501(c)(3) Groups

Reid Seeks Help from the White House for Separate Hans von Spakovsky Vote

IRS May Consider Project to Monitor Political Activity of 501(c)(4)s

Young Adults Voting at Record Levels this Primary Season

Missouri Lawmakers Want to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Group Seeks Court Test of IRS Electioneering Ban

Archived Entries for Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007