Indiana Voter ID Law Constitutional

The Supreme Court ruled today that the states can require voters to present an ID in order to be able to vote, since states have "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." See decision on scotus here. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari last fall, accepting to review the constitutionality of an Indiana Statute, the Voter ID Law requiring citizens to present a photo identification issued by the government before voting. See the EPIC's page on the case here.

New York State to Implement Real ID Act

Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York, announced that the State will implement the Real ID Act. The National Governors Association is against the Real ID Act.

Will this be done to the detriment of the privacy of the citizens of New York? Others states have already voted to reject this Act. See here for the ACLU site.

The Supreme Court Accepts to Review Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

The Supreme Court has accepted to review the 7th Circuit January 2007 decision, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949. The petition for writ of certiorari is here. Unlike the Missouri Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit upheld a statute making it mandatory to present an ID card when voting.

This is the text of the Indiana statute, IC 3-5-2-40.5,"Proof of identification":

Sec. 40.5. "Proof of identification" refers to a document that satisfies all the following:

(1) The document shows the name of the individual to whom the document was issued, and the name conforms to the name in the individual's voter registration record.

(2) The document shows a photograph of the individual to whom the document was issued.

(3) The document includes an expiration date, and the document:
(A) is not expired; or
(B) expired after the date of the most recent general election.

(4) The document was issued by the United States or the state of Indiana. As added by P.L.109-2005, SEC.1.

As civil liberties advocates have pointed out, this type of law discriminates against the poorest Americans. They cannot afford the cost of a ID card, and thus cannot vote.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court uses strict scrutiny. In a 1992 case, Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), a case cited by the 7th Circuit, the Supreme Court refused to apply the strict scrutiny standard to a case challenging the constitutionality of a Hawaii law requiring casting, tabulation, and publication of write in votes.

A New Hiibel Case?

Via Boing Boing: Michael Amor Righi was arrested for refusing to let a merchant check the content of his shopping, and for refusing to present an ID to the policeman that he called himself to the scene.

About refusing to let a security guard check the content: as every (traumatized) bar candidate can attest, the "shopkeeper's privilege" allows a merchant to detain a person, for a reasonable amount of time, if he has reason to believe that the person is a shoplifter. Once Mr. Amor Righi refused to let them check the content, one can argue that he became a suspect. It is probably easier to challenge the systematic checking of every shopping bags, as many merchants do nowadays. Indeed, the policeman admitted to him, after his arrest, that he was surprised that he had not, in fact, stolen anything.

These facts are similar to the Hiibel case, In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. , 177 (2004), the Supreme Court held that an officer can ask a person to identify himself during a Terry stop, and failure to do so can lead to an arrest and a conviction, and that the mere fact to identify himself could not self-incriminate Mr. Hiibel.

Mr. Hiibel was arrested during a Terry stop, named after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). A police office can stop a person and conduct a quick investigation if he can reasonably believe that this person has committed a crime or is about to commit one. In a case very similar to Hiibel, the Supreme Court held that a Texas statute requiring a person to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment, since “none of the circumstances preceding the officer’s detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct, ” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979).

One can argue that the officer in the Hiibel case could reasonably believe that Mr. Hiibel may have committed a crime or was about to commit one. The officer was answering a dispatch call, informing him that someone had reported a that a man driving a truck had struck his female passenger. Mr. Hiibel fitted the description. Even though the officer was not very clear when justifying to Mr. Hiibel why he was asking for an identification (“I am investigating an investigation”), he was trying to determine whether there had been a fight. The officer also observed that Mr. Hiibel looked intoxicated. He could reasonably suspect him of battery and driving under the influence.

The officer said to Mr. Hiibel: “…I wanna find out who you are and I wanna find out what I've got going on here”. During a Terry stop, an officer has the right to find out “what’s going on,” but does he also have the right to find out who we are?

NRS 171.123 (3) , the Nevada Statute at stake in Hiibel, states that “the officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity”. Does that mean that the person must speak his name and, possibly, surname? Is an address part of one’s identity? Must NRS 171.123 (3) be interpreted as a request for producing identification papers? The officer asked Mr. Hiibel… “you've got any identification on you?” and “I need to see some identification.” The Supreme Court understood the officer’s request as meaning “a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification,” Hiibel, 542 U.S. 178, but the statute does not mention that the person must show a written identification.

Identification by Fingerprinting

Interesting article in Time, by Anita Hamilton, about the use of fingerprints to identify customers who do not have I.D. The paper version of the article shows a picture of a check "endorsed" by a fingerprint, but, unfortunately, this image is not on line. It was eerie to see a biometric way of identification printed on a commercial instrument.

No mandatory ID for Missouri voters

The Missouri Supreme Court decided this month that the State of Missouri cannot require that voters present state or federal identification documents carrying a photograph, in order to vote.

The Court cited the 1966 Supreme Court case, Harper v. Board of Elections, which held that " Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax." Since getting identification papers is not free, asking voters to provide papers to akin to ask them to pay a fee. The Missouri Supreme Court notes that it costs 15 dollars to obtain a birth certificate in the State, and its costs between 97 and 236 dollars to obtain a passport.