Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
553 U.S. (2008)
Rule of Law:
A neutral, nondiscriminatory state law requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification is constitutional because the state's legitimate interests in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity outweigh the minimal and indirect burdens the law imposes on the right to vote.
Facts:
- In 2005, Indiana enacted Senate Enrolled Act 483 (SEA 483), which requires citizens voting in person to present a photo identification issued by the government.
- The law does not apply to individuals who vote by absentee ballot via mail or to residents of state-licensed care facilities like nursing homes.
- The State of Indiana offers free photo identification cards through its Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to qualified voters who do not possess another valid form of government ID.
- To obtain a state-issued ID for the first time, an applicant must typically present primary documents, such as a birth certificate, which may require a fee to obtain from the relevant authorities.
- The law permits a voter who does not have a photo ID on election day to cast a provisional ballot.
- For a provisional ballot to be counted, the voter must travel to the circuit court clerk's office within ten days of the election and either present the required ID or execute an affidavit of indigence or religious objection to being photographed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Indiana Democratic Party and other plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of SEA 483.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Indiana statute requiring citizens to present a government-issued photo identification in order to vote in person violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority (plurality) - Justice Stevens
No, the Indiana statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. A court must weigh the asserted injury to the right to vote against the state's interests, and here, the state's interests are sufficient. The State of Indiana has identified legitimate interests in deterring and detecting voter fraud, modernizing its election procedures, and safeguarding public confidence in the electoral process. Although the record contains no evidence of in-person voter fraud in Indiana's history, the risk of fraud is real and the state's interests in preventing it are valid and neutral. The burden on the vast majority of voters is minimal, as most already possess the required identification. For the small number of voters who do not, the inconvenience of obtaining a free ID from the state does not constitute a substantial burden on their right to vote, and the provisional ballot option mitigates any remaining hardship. Because the challengers brought a facial attack, they bear a heavy burden to show the statute is unconstitutional in all applications, and they failed to produce evidence of any specific individual who would be unable to vote because of the law.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, the Indiana statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The proper standard from Burdick v. Takushi requires applying a deferential 'important regulatory interests' standard unless a law imposes a severe burden on the right to vote. The Indiana law is a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory regulation that imposes a single, minimal burden on all voters: the requirement to obtain and present a free photo ID. The varied individual impacts of this uniform requirement are irrelevant to determining its severity. Because the burden is not severe, the state's legitimate regulatory interests in election integrity are sufficient to justify it.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes, the Indiana statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The law imposes nontrivial burdens on tens of thousands of citizens, particularly the poor, elderly, and immobile, who face costs for travel and underlying documents like birth certificates. The provisional ballot alternative is itself a significant burden, requiring a separate trip to the county seat after every election. A state cannot justify such burdens by invoking abstract interests; it must make a factual showing that the threat to its interests outweighs the impediments imposed. Indiana has failed to provide a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in its history, rendering its primary justification for the law speculative and insufficient to outweigh the concrete burdens placed on the fundamental right to vote.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes, the Indiana statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment. While a photo ID requirement is not automatically unconstitutional, the court must balance the interests involved. The Carter-Baker Commission report, on which the state relied, recommended that any such requirement be conditioned on IDs being 'easily available' and the law being 'phased in'—conditions Indiana failed to meet. Compared to less restrictive alternatives in states like Florida and Georgia, Indiana's law imposes a disproportionately harsh and unjustified burden on eligible voters who lack a photo ID, particularly the poor, elderly, and disabled.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant precedent for the constitutionality of voter identification laws, making facial challenges extremely difficult to win. By accepting the state's interest in preventing potential fraud as legitimate—even without evidence that such fraud had occurred—the Court set a high bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to produce concrete evidence of specific voters who were actually disenfranchised. This ruling validated the first wave of strict photo ID laws and effectively shifted the legal battleground from broad facial challenges to more narrow 'as-applied' challenges focusing on the law's impact on individual voters.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"