Litigating the Indiana Photo-ID Law

Lessons in Judicial Dissonance and Abdication

Bibliographic Data

ID12376929
AuthorsWilliam R Groth (corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume42
Issue1
Pages97-101
Publication date2009-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePS Political Science & Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1049-0965 • E-ISSN: 1537-5935
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1049096509090258
OpenAlexW2012862284
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited4

Following the 2004 elections Republicans assumed ascendancy in Indiana, capturing the governorship for the first time in 16 years, retaining control of the Senate and regaining control of the Indiana House of Representatives after eight years in political exile. This political development set the stage for the passage in April 2005 of the Indiana photo-ID law, also known as Senate Enrolled Act 483 (SEA), on a straight party-line vote. Two days after SEA 483 was signed into law by governor Mitch Daniels the Indiana Democratic Party (IDP) filed suit in federal district court in Indianapolis ( IDP v. Rokita 2006). The case was assigned in a blind draw to U.S. district judge Sarah Evans Barker, an appointee of President Reagan and a former U.S. attorney. The same day the Indiana chapter of the ACLU filed an action in Marion Superior Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board . The Indiana attorney general intervened in both cases to defend the law's constitutionality and removed Crawford to federal court, where it was immediately consolidated with Rokita

Abdication · Ballot · Cabinet (room · Constitutionality · Democracy · Governor · House of Representatives · Political science · Politics · Supreme court · Voting · Engineering · History · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Legal and Constitutional Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub