Supreme Court’s decision on the Indiana ID Crawford Case in the News

by Whitney Norton

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law was all over the news today, and the National Campaign and Lawyers’ Committee served as resources.

In today’s New York Times, Ian Urbina’s Decision is Likely to Spur Voter ID Laws in More States claims:

Far from settling the debate over voter identification, the Supreme Court ruling on Monday upholding Indiana’s voter ID law is likely to lead to more laws and litigation, voting experts said.

Urbina goes on to quote National Campaign Director Jonah Goldman:

"Even before the verdict, we saw confusion surrounding voter ID laws, and now voters and poll workers are more likely to think the Supreme Court just approved some national voter ID law, which indeed they did not," said Jonah H. Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Mr. Goldman said that poll workers might ask for unrequired identification and that citizens might not vote because they mistakenly thought that they could not do so if they did not have certain forms of identification.

 To read the entire article, click here.

NBC News Channel interviewed Director of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Voting Rights Project Jon Greenbaum about the Supreme Court’s decision. Their affiliate in Knoxville, TN called it the "biggest court decision affecting politics since Bush versus Gore in 2000." Greenbaum warned that "At the polls in November, you’re gonna be seeing voters asked for identification where it’s not required in their jurisdiction." To read the entire story, click here.

The Washington Post and the New York Times published editorials this morning decrying the decision. The Post’s Carded at the Polls calls the law "a bad solution to a nonproblem." The editorial begins:

IT’S LIKELY that yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law will spur debate in other states about whether to adopt similar provisions. The short answer is, they should not. And if they do, they should not use the Indiana law as a template.

Click here to read the entire Washington Post editorial.

The New York Times’ The Court Fumbles on Voting Rights opens by calling Democracy "the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday," and continues, saying:

The court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which solves a nearly nonexistent problem by putting major barriers between voters - particularly minorities - and the ballot box. Worse, the court set out a standard that clears the way for other states to adopt rules that discourage disadvantaged groups from voting. It is a sad reversal for a court that once saw itself as a champion of voting rights.

Click here to read the entire New York Times editorial.

IN OTHER NEWS
The Lawyers’ Committee’s Voting Rights Project has joined other voting rights organizations in a lawsuit against the state of Missouri to enforce compliance with the National Voting Rights Act. Click here to read a story from a local news organization.