Indiana Case Analysis

Listen to this article

Both of these cases address Indiana laws, but both are nevertheless relevant to Wisconsin attorneys and lawmakers.

A requirement that voters present photo ID has wide support in Wisconsin, and legislation has previously been introduced to create such a requirement, although there is currently no such requirement.

By upholding the Indiana statute, the court has made it easy for Wisconsin lawmakers to avoid constitutional litigation (or at least extensive research) on certain issues, should they choose to pass a law identical in substance to Indiana’s.

In addition, a Wisconsin law would likely be even less vulnerable to constitutional attack. The dissent in the case at bar found it significant that the record lacked any evidence that voter fraud was a problem in Indiana. In contrast, in Wisconsin, except for the most recent election in 2006, the previous three federal general elections all provoked allegations of fraud.

Furthermore, the case is relevant for its discussion of standing. Were a photo ID law to be passed in Wisconsin, the state Democratic Party will have standing to sue; whatever organization(s) might wish to get together to challenge the law, all they need to do is include the Democratic Party as a plaintiff, and standing is assured.

Finally, the court’s discussion of the various assembled plaintiffs is relevant, not to standing, but to the merits. The court noted that, among all of the plaintiffs, there was not one claiming that he would vote were it not for the photo ID requirement, but that he will not vote because of it.

The court interpreted this absence as evidence that the burden imposed by the law on voters is negligible. A Wisconsin group challenging a similar law would be wise to seek out such a plaintiff, and thus, eliminate this basis as a ground for upholding the law. Whether such a plaintiff could actually be found is another matter.

The court’s discussion of the IDEA case is also relevant, although it does not address any specific provision of Wisconsin law.

	Related Article Voter ID law upheld

Like Indiana, Wisconsin has an explicit time limitation for seeking review of a final administrative decision, although it is 45 days, rather than Indiana’s 30. Sec. 115.78(7).

As a result of this decision, that 45-day provision cannot be equitably tolled (or at least not unless there are extreme circumstances not contemplated by the court in this case that might justify tolling).

More generally, the court’s discussion of e-filing is relevant to all who practice in federal courts, regardless of the substantive area of law in which they practice.

In light of this decision, a document filed electronically must be deemed to have been timely filed, even if it is woefully deficient, and the computer rejects it.

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.