Voter ID Defeated in Indiana

I find it amazing and unbelievable that requiring voters to present identification to be so controversial! But, it seems that the state of Indiana refuses to require it. This was reported two days ago from the AP (emphasis added):

Indiana court strikes down tough voter ID law

By CHARLES WILSON and MIKE SMITH (AP) – 2 days ago

INDIANAPOLIS — The state Court of Appeals on Thursday struck down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification for voters, overturning on state constitutional grounds a strict law previously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Considered one of the nation's toughest voter identification laws, it requires that a state or federal photo ID card be presented at the ballot box. Critics have said it disenfranchises some poor, older and minority voters. Supporters contend it is needed to prevent voter fraud at the polls, which critics say is rare.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels called Thursday's 3-0 ruling "an act of judicial arrogance."

"It would be one thing if this thing had not already been litigated from the bottom up through the federal system, and multiple court rulings — including the Supreme Court of the United States — hadn't already spoken," Daniels said.

The Indiana Democratic Party previously challenged the law in federal court, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution. But the nation's highest court upheld 6-3 in April 2008.

The League of Women Voters then challenged the law in state courts, arguing it violated the Indiana Constitution by imposing a requirement on some, but not all, voters.

A Marion County judge dismissed the suit in December, but the League appealed, and this time a panel of judges ruled in its favor. In a 29-page ruling, Judge Patricia A. Riley wrote that the trial court must declare the law void because it regulates voters in a way that is not "uniform and impartial."

The judges held that it was irrational to require those who vote in person to verify their identities when those who vote by mail are not required to do so even though absentee voting is more susceptible to fraud. The panel also said the law arbitrarily gives preferential treatment to people who vote in nursing homes where they live because they aren't required to show a photo ID even though other elderly people who vote elsewhere must.

While the nursing home discrepancy could be remedied easily by requiring those residents to present ID, the treatment favoring absentee voters might require legislation to fix, the judges said.

"We are grateful that the Indiana Court of Appeals has, at least for the time being, put a stop to legislative efforts to single out and burden a class of voters — those who vote in-person — without reasonable or justifiable cause and without any evidence that these burdens were necessary," said Erin Kelley, president of the Indianapolis League of Woman Voters.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said he would appeal.

"The state's long-held view is that the Voter ID law is constitutional, and we will vigorously defend the statute in arguing that position before the Indiana Supreme Court," he said.

It was not immediately clear what effect the ruling might have on the 2010 elections.

...

With all the bad press ACORN has been getting lately, along with their questionable activities during the 2008 presidential election, you would think the need for voter ID would be without question. However, I never considered before the point of absentee voting. I do believe that we must require valid identification, and this obvious loophole in the law needs to be fixed.

I guess it's just too logical to require voter ID ... and complicates getting voters signed up by such groups as ACORN.