League of Women Voters v. Rokita

The League of Women Voters of Indiana and the League of Women Voters of Indianapolis challenged Indiana’s Voter ID Law under provisions of the Indiana State Constitution. The Indiana law is the most restrictive ID law in America, and will exclude many eligible voters from participating in our democratic process.

On September 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals of Indiana, in an opinion authored by Judge Riley, reversed the trial court decision and struck down the Voter ID law, arguing that the provision violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 23.

On October 19, 2009, both parties filed respective petitions to transfer to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs focused on Article 2, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution and argued that the legislature may not add qualifications for voting other than by constitutional amendment. Defendant appealed its loss in the lower court and also argued whether seeking a declaratory judgment that a statute is invalid is justiciable against a state official who does not enforce the statute. 

On November 9, 2009, various parties filed amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs. They are available below.

On June 30, 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana affirmed the decision of the trial court and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The opinion is available below.

Other selected court documents are also posted. All legal documents related to the case can be found here.

Supreme Court Documents
Plaintiffs’ Petition to Transfer (10/19/09)
Defendant’s Petition to Transfer (10/19/09)
Plaintiffs’ Response to Petition to Transfer (11/09/09)
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Transfer (11/18/09)
Final Opinion Affirming the Decision of the Trial Court and Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (6/30/10)

Supreme Court Briefs In Support of Plaintiffs
Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Madison, Levinson, and Etcheson (11/09/09)
This brief, submitted by three of Indiana’s premier scholars on the Indiana constitution, examines the historical context of Indiana’s Constitution and demonstrates that this history compels reading the privileges and immunities clause to demand careful scrutiny of classifications which privilege some eligible voters over others.
(Assisted by Jenner & Block LLP and Drewry, Simmons & Vornehm LLP)

Brief of Amici Curiae AARP and National Senior Citizens Law Center (11/09/09)
This brief examines the disenfranchising impact of Indiana’s photo ID law on older Americans and demonstrates that the exceptions to the identification requirements do not save the law from its constitutional infirmities.
(Assisted by Hogan & Hartson LLP)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (11/09/09)
This brief argues that the Crawford decision does not resolve the question before the Indiana Supreme Court and demonstrates that the Indiana photo ID law is highly vulnerable to constitutional attack.
(Assisted by O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Schembs Sweeney Law)

Brief of Amici Curiae Lonna Rae Atkeson, Matt A. Barreto, Lorraine C. Minnite, Jonathan Nagler, Stephen A. Nuño, and Gabriel Ramon Sanchez (11/09/09)
This brief, submitted by prominent social scientists, examines some of the best available social science data on the impact of Indiana’s photo identification law.
(Assisted by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP and A. Douglas Stephens, Attorney at Law)

Brief of Amici Curiae Southern Coalition for Social Justice and American Civil Liberties Union (11/09/09)
This brief examines other states’ Privileges and Immunities Clauses and demonstrates that those states with privileges and immunities clauses modeled after Indiana’s have developed robust independent modes of review under those clauses.

Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (11/09/09)
This brief examines the disenfranchising impact of Indiana’s photo ID law on African Americans and demonstrates that this burden on the right to vote violates Indiana’s Constitution.

Brief of Amicus Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States (11/09/09)
This brief argues that voting is a core value and classifications which burden that value must be justified by a sufficiently weighty interest and be closely related to that interest.
(Assisted by Crowell & Moring LLP and Michael K. Sutherlin &  Associates, PC)

Selected Court Documents
Amended Complaint (Trial Court, 07/29/08)
Brief of Appellants (Court of Appeals, 03/02/09)
Brief of Appellee (Court of Appeals, 04/06/09)
Appellant’s Additional Citation of Authority (Court of Appeals, 07/17/09)
Opinion – Reversing trial court and Remanding with instructions (Court of Appeals, 09/17/09)