We fail to see how the Voter I.D. Law's exception of those residing in state licensed care facilities, which happen to also be a polling place, would be a uniform or impartial regulation. Furthermore, the Voter I.D. Law treats in-person voters disparate from mail-in voters, conferring partial treatment upon mail-in voters.Read more here at the Indiana Law Blog. Check out the spin Indiana Democrats are putting on this decision:
It seems that the inconsistent and impartial treatment favoring voters who reside at state care facilities which also happen to be polling places could be excised from the Voter I.D. Law without destroying the primary objectives of the Law. However, the same cannot be said for the inconsistent and partial treatment favoring absentee voters who choose to mail their votes without destroying the opportunity for mailing votes. There may be different ways in which the inconsistent and partial treatment of the Voter I.D. Law could be cured, but it is not our task to form suggestions for legislation. See State ex rel. Indiana State Bd. of Finance v. Marion County Superior, 272 Ind. 47, 52, 396 N.E.2d 340, 344 (1979) (“Our constitution is clear that the judicial department cannot exercise any of the functions of either the legislative department or executive . . . .”). Therefore, we must reverse and remand, with instructions to the trial court that it enter an order declaring the Voter I.D. Law void.
"Today's decision is a victory for elderly, disabled, and poor Hoosiers, and more importantly our democratic process.
"By declaring that this law is not uniform or impartial, the court has recognized the very real barriers that Governor Daniels and Secretary Rokita had placed between voters and the ballot box.
"We should all be interested in preserving the legitimacy of our electoral process, but to do so through disenfranchisement is simply unacceptable. From the outset, this law created more harm than good, and did little to address the vulnerabilities in our democratic voting system.
"As with Governor Daniels' recently announced changes to the identification requirements of this state, it appears that some elected officials remain blind to the effect their policies have on voters in Indiana.
"I hope that Secretary Rokita takes this opportunity to reevaluate how he can put partisanship aside and find a solution that protects all Hoosiers equally."
Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, Dan, but today's decision has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the elderly to vote. The Star has Gov. Daniels' reaction to the decision, which is very sharp and to the point:
Gov. Mitch Daniels, who said he had not read the ruling but had been briefed on it, called the result "preposterous" and "an act of judicial arrogance."
He said it would be appealed and, he predicted, overturned. He noted that the voter ID law already had been approved by other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld it last year in a 6-3 opinion.
"The legislature had every right to write that law. This decision will be a footnote to history," Daniels said.