Editor’s Note: The following is a guest contribution from Jay Fisher, a friend and fellow Federalist at heart. If you’re interested in writing on the topic of Balanced Government, reach me via the “Contact” page.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Jay Fisher
In a victory for balanced government the United States Supreme Court on Monday held that Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo identification was constitutional.
The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided by a vote of 6-3 with the Majority Opinion by Justices Stevens, joined by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote a Concurring Opinion which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The Opinions can be found here.
The Indiana law requires all voters to show photo ID when they vote in person. It does not apply to absentee voters. The law was challenged by the Indiana Democratic Party that asserted it substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Stevens held that Indiana had legitimate interests in passing the law, including reducing election fraud. The burden to a few voters from the ID requirement may be large, but that is not enough to overturn the law.
As usual, Justice Scalia argued incisively and strongly for the Founders view of limited and balanced government. He argued that the Majority Opinion’s holding took an “individual-focused approach.” This will lead to constant litigation as plaintiffs try and see if they can get the Courts to rule that the burden in their case goes too far.
Justice Scalia states:
That sort of detailed judicial supervision of the election process would flout the Constitution’s express commitment of the task to the States. See Art. 1, Sec. 4. It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustifed overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class.
Under the Constitution, election law should be the purview of the States, unless it can be shown that a particular law is discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It’s interesting to read Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s argument against the law. He stated that “[T]he fact that every Republican in the Indiana General Assembly supported this law and every Democrat opposed it, speaks volumes about the improper partisan motives behind the photo ID movement.” The Chicago Tribune quotes a law professor opposed to the law because it “defers too much to the power of the states” and could be used by Democrats to enact same day voter registration to hurt Republicans.
What Sen. Reid doesn’t understand is that “improper partisan motives” are not unconstitutional. Because Republicans or Democrats think something is good policy and will help them does not make it a federal case. The Federal Courts don’t exist to overturn all partisan policymaking.
And to the esteemed law professor (and many others I have known) I would suggest that one remember that the Tenth Amendment was supposed to reserve most powers to the States. If Wisconsin wants to have same day registration despite the increased possibilities of fraud while Indiana wants to require photo ID despite the burden on some people that is fine. If the citizens of Wisconsin or Indiana don’t like those laws they can elect legislators to change them. That is the remedy, not to file suit. States should be laboratories of democracy.