Tuesday, January 26, 2010


Plaintiff, )
v. ) CASE NUMBER: 1:08-cv-586-LJM-TAB
Defendants. )
MOTION FOR partial summary judgment

Plaintiff Robbin Stewart moves the court for partial summary judgment as motions as follows:

The parties do not agree on every fact in the case. But I think that they agree on certain core facts which are sufficient to frame the issues for decision.
These include: that in 2005 the county and state adopted a policy of requiring ID as a precondition to voting;
that that policy is still continuing;
that plaintiff is a person who is unwilling to show ID as a precondition of voting;
that my provisional ballots have not been counted and I have cast no counted vote since 2005, although I wish to vote and have tried to do so;
that the announced results in 2006 and the 2008 primary did not include provisional ballots where no ID was shown and did not include votes of people who were not allowed to vote for reason of voter ID.
I am a registered voter and have previously voted at that precinct and in Marion County. There is no contention that I am not who I say I am, or that my signature does not match the signature in the poll book.
The continued denial of my vote in 2008 and 2009 elections are not before the court at this time, because the court has not allowed the complaint to be supplemented with the new facts that have arisen as a consequence of the court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief as this case proceeds. There is a live controversy, plaintiff has standing,and the issues are ripe for decision, and can be decided as a matter of law.

The contested legal issues in the case include whether plaintiff had a right to vote without ID, and a right to free elections including the votes of people without ID,
A) under the free and equal elections clauses of article II section 1,
B) under the right to vote of article II section 2,
C) under the right of free speech under Article I section 9,
D) under the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I section 11
E) under the right to due course of law under Article I section 12
F) under the 24th Amendment to the US constitution
G) under the First Amendment
H) under the 4th Amendment
I) under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
G) under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Claims under Article I section 31 (right to petition) are not addressed herein.
Claims under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment are not addressed in this motion, as they are better deferred until the Supreme Court rules in McDonald v Chicago. Claims under the 15th Amendment are not addressed herein.
The law is with the plaintiff and against the defendants in this case.
Accordingly, the court should rule that plaintiff's rights were violated by the defendants conduct at issue, and set a jury trial as to matter of damages,and permanently enjoin defendants from again denying plaintiff the right to vote.
The court should order that his provisional ballots be counted.

In support of this motion plaintiff relies, as is further set out in the brief in support, on the following documents.
The verified complaint.
Affidavit of plaintiff.
County's response to interrogatories.
County's reply brief in Crawford v Marion.
[Plaintiff's deposition, if submitted into evidence by defendants. (Being indigent, I have been unable to purchase a copy myself, and was not provided with a copy.)]
Additionally, plaintiffs rely on the legal arguments contained in their separately submitted Memorandum of Law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant me partial summary judgment in
this cause and all other proper relief.


outlion of brief in support

table of contents
table of authorities
facts, undisputed.
facts, disputed.
summary of argument.

Facts -
0. The case is framed by Marbury v Madison and Erie Railroad. This court must give full faith and credit to the Indiana Court's having found the statute unconstitutional, which affects the analysis of every claim.
I. Standard of Review -
a) 24th Amendment
b) First Amendment
c) other claims.

II Voter ID violates the state constitution.
a) Article II
b) Article I
III Voter ID violates the 24th Amendment.
a) The birth certificate fee is an "other tax" under the text of the 24th Amendment.
b) The voter ID obstacle to voting is like the reregistration requirements found to violate the 24th Amendment in Harman v Forsennius.
IV Voter ID, on these facts, violates the First Amendment under the Crawford test.
V Voter ID violates the 4th Amendment, in that it is an unwarranted search without reasonable suspicion not falling under any of the current exceptions to the warrant requirement.
VI Voter ID violates the 14th Amendment.

This is a case about whether Indiana's voter ID rules are constitutional,and whether plaintiff has a remedy for being denied the vote because of voter ID.
Plaintiff was denied the vote after being unwilling to show a voter license,
in the general election of 2006,the primary election of 2007 and the primary election of 2008.
The controversy is live because these votes have not yet been counted.
The policy continues in force today. The denial of plaintiff's votes in the 2008 general and 2009 special elections are not at issue here,and are reserved for the next round of this litigation.
On several occasions, plaintiff cast provisional votes, which were then not counted.
The first instance took place at my precinct, 10-4 in Marion County Center Township, in 2006. The second instance took place at the Marion County clerk's office, where early voting is conducted, in 2007. The third instance took place in the Marion County clerks office in 2008, just after I filed this lawsuit.
Over 1000 provisional votes have gone uncounted in Indiana since the policy was adopted in 2005. An unknown number of people have been turned away at the polls without being allowed to cast even provisional votes, or have been prevented from voting because of the policy and did not bother to cast provisional votes that they knew would not be counted. One result has been that the outcome of close elections in Indiana cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Most elections are not close,and most races held since 2005 have had a clear winner.
Plaintiff was a real party in interest in Crawford v Marion County,and the consolidated case of Democratic Party v Rokita, and participated as an amicus. In that case, in 3-3-3 split decision, the Supreme Court denied a facial challenge on the grounds the plaintiffs had stipulated that the policy was constitutional up to 99% of the time. A concurring opinion would have upheld the statute on the merits, and a dissent would have found the statute unconstitutional.
In Crawford, the League of Women Voters was denied intervention. The League filed its own case in state court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the statute was unconstitutional and void under section 23 of the Indiana Bill of Rights, the equal privileges clause. "Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Voter I.D. law violates Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 23, and must be declared void because it regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial." On January 25th, the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer of the cross-petitions. The State is appealing the section 23 ruling, while the League is appealing the denial of its Article II section 2 claim. This plaintiff's motion to intervene was denied. This court denied a motion to stay proceedings until LWV becomes final, and set a schedule for dispositive motions,which has been extended to February 9.

eire doctrine
marbury v madison
no statute.

standard of review
anderson v celebreeze aka crawford standard.
norman v reed standard.
harmon v forsennius standard - absolute bar for poll taxes, strict scrutiny for ballot impediments.
The outcome of constitutional challenges often depends on application of the correct standard of review.
In previous rulings on the constitutionality of the Voter ID Act, lower courts have erroneously applied deferential review and upheld the statute. (Crawford, Crawford, this case, LWV.)
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F. Supp. 2d 775, 784 (S.D. Ind. 2006),

The standard of review is at least that of the Anderson test. Under some authority, the standard is strict scrutiny. Norman v Reed, Harper v Virginia Board, Williams v Rhodes, Harman v Forsennius. However, if the birth certificate fee is found to be a tax pursuant to the 24th Amendment, the state is absolutely barred from continuing to require it as a condition of voting.
examples of absolute bar:
The federal constitution sets out numerous specific requirements, which are intended to be adhered to absolutely. For example, the president is limited to two terms, women are allowed to vote on the same terms as men,and no tax may be made a condition of voting. There are no balancing tests and no degrees of scrutiny, however strict. No state interests, however compelling, permit the president to hold a 3rd or 4th term, permit the government to disenfranchise women, or permit voting to be conditioned on payment of a tax. This is different from more general provisions, such as "freedom of speech" "due process" or "equal protection of the laws" which are necessarily matters of construction and interpretation.
It is possible to agree or disagree that the requirement of fees for birth certificates, drivers licenses or passports constitutes a prohibited "poll tax or other tax." The 7th circuit's mention in dicta of poll taxes in its discredited and vacated
Crawford opinion is not controlling here, because that was in the context of a First Amendment discussion reviewed under a rational basis standard, and was a not a Twenty-fourth Amendment analysis. But the Twenty-fourth Amendment, under the single binding precedent of Harman v Forsennius, goes beyond poll taxes themselves, and looks at barriers to voting. Harman does not explicitly use the term "strict scrutiny", but that appears to be the standard it applied. Certainly the rule for decision was far more exacting than the sort of permissive review the lower courts used in Crawford. In this case, I and other prospective voters have been barred from voting if we don't show proof of purchase of a birth certificate in order to purchase a driver's license. A passport, which costs $100, can be used instead, but in order to get a passport you need a drivers license, and in order to get a drivers license you need a birth certificate. None of these documents are free. There has been a red herring in this case about "free" ID's, but I am not eligible for one, since I have a driver's license,and they are not really free anyway. The 80% of Indiana voters who have driver's licenses are not eligible for "free" IDs. I paid a fee to obtain a birth certificate and another fee to obtain a driver's license. It is the birth certificate fee which functions as a prohibited tax in this case. Whether the voter uses a passport, driver's license, or ID card, each requires the birth certificate, which costs money.
Nor do any of the exceptions under the program, such as religious or indigency exceptions, fit my case, or fit the cases of most of the thousand-plus cases where voters were improperly disenfranchised by the voter ID policy. Whether viewed as a poll tax or other tax and absolutely barred by the 24th Amendment, or merely as barrier to voting subject to strict scrutiny under the 24th Amendment, the voter ID program is an unconstitutional barrier to voting, so that when I was denied the vote for failing to show these documents, my right to vote was denied. When this court on two occasions refused to issue temporary injunctive relief, it violated its duty as an inferior court to follow the binding precedent issued by the United States Supreme Court, Harman v Forsennius. It should not repeat that error a third time.

crawford analysis
only county interest is following the statute.
state has yet to assert any interests.

unwarranted search is severe burden
impact on this plaintiff is severe burden

fraud detection
no public confidence aspect
what's the third?

factors in the county reply brief.

balance of the burden and the state interest:

outlion of brief in support

eire doctrine
marbury v madison
no statute.

Two landmark cases frame the legal issues in this case, Marbury v Madison and Erie Railroad. Marbury holds that an unconstitutional statute is void and without effect.
Erie hold that federal courts must accept state court construction of state law.
Under current state law, announced by the Indiana Court of Appeals in League of Women Voters v Rokita, the voter ID act of 2005 is unconstitutional. That case is not yet final, but this court has already refused a stay to await any further developments. (Plaintiff initially opposed a stay, when it was directed at interfering with motions for temporary injunctive relief and certification, because a stay of the sort sought would have mooted those motions. After those motions were denied, plaintiff contacted defense counsel offering a joint motion for a stay, but the defense was no longer interested.)
This court may not agree with the state court's finding that the Act is unconstitutional and void. But it is bound by it and lacks jurisdiction to override the Indiana courts' construction of their own statutes and constitution.
The finding by the state court changes the game. The Seventh Circuit opinion in Crawford, which tacitly upheld the state challenges by not discussing them, has been superceded. This court's first ruling denying injunctive relief has been superceded, because that decision relied both on the statute and on a misplaced strong presumption that the statute was valid. This court's second denial of injunction, which relied solely on the reasoning of the first, was in error, because of the way the law had changed between the two rulings. There is no longer any legislative authority for the county's policy of denying the vote to plaintiff and others who do not comply with the voter ID qualification for voting. The county's only rationale for its policy was the interest in following the statute. Defendant's response to interrogatories. @ cite here.

Now, only inertia keeps the policy in place.
The county has admitted that the policy is counterproductive and interferes with the conduct of elections. In its reply brief to the Unites States Supreme Court in Crawford, the county said the following:

The basic fact pattern in this case is that the county and state have been, since 2005, following a policy that was not actually authorized by any valid legislation.
The question becomes whether the policy, unsupported by legislative enactment,
violates the First, Fourth, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Fourth Amendments, and whether it violates the Indiana Constitution, article II section 1 and 2, article I sections 9, 11, and 12. Because there had been a statute, and that statute had been upheld initially, qualified immunity would have probably attached, if there had been any personal capacity claims in this case, but there are none.
Each claim will be discussed in turn below.

Because it is in theory possible that the Indiana Supreme Court could overturn the ruling voiding the statute, there is a also a discussion below, in the alternative, which does not rely on the current finding of voidness. Even if there were no state constitutional problems with the statute, it would still violate the 24th Amendment, and likely also fail the Crawford analysis, and constitute an equal protection violation.

standard of review
anderson v celebreeze aka crawford standard.
norman v reed standard.
harmon v forsennius standard - absolute bar for poll taxes, strict scrutiny for ballot impediments.

The standard of review for the first amendment claim is either the Anderson test, set out in Crawford, or the strict scrutiny test set out in Norman v Reed.
The standard of review under the 24th Amendment claim is either an absolute bar to taxes or fees as a precondition of voting, or is strict scrutiny of procedural barriers to voting, per Harmon v Forsennius.
The standard of review under the Fourth Amendment is that unwarranted searches are presumptively unreasonable, outside of certain narrow exceptions not applicable here.
The standard of review under the equal protection prong of the Fourteenth Amendment is either the Anderson test, following Crawford, or the strict scrutiny test of Harper v Virginia. The facts of this case fall midway between Crawford and Harper.
In Crawford, plaintiffs attempted a facial challenge while conceding that the (former) statute was constitutional up to 99% of the time, and only infringed the rights of a small group. Harper evaluated a poll tax,and struck it down without reference to the 24th Amendment. Here, there is no longer a statute authorizing the program. An Indiana court of competent jurisdiction has declared the statute void.
The program is challenged both facially and as applied to plaintiff. Plaintiff contends the program violates the rights of every Indiana voter and resident.
Probably Harper is the more analogous case,and strict scrutiny should be applied, but plaintiff is entitled to prevail on the equal protection claim regardless of which standard is used.
The standard of review under article II, sections 1 and 2, has not been set out with specificity in any exact formula.
Elections are free when _. Elections are equal when _. Blue v Board.
But the cases have treated these as meaningful restrictions. The district court in Crawford erred in treating section 2 as providing only rational basis review. Rational basis review of legislation is already guaranteed by the due course of law provisions of Article I section 12,and the Indiana constitution is not massively redundant - each provision means something. Sections 1 and 2 are self-enforcing, not merely hortatory. Perhaps the best authority on the standard of review in a section 2 case about voter ID would be League of Women Voters v Rokita ("LWV") But there is an essential difference between the resulting analysis. In LWV, the court began with the section 2 claim, upheld the statute,and went on to consider the section 23 claim, and found the statute unconstitutional under section 23. Our task is different. Now that the statute has been declared void, we need to examine whether the voter ID program, unauthorized by statute, complies with section 2. The result is different.
The standard of review under Article I section 9 is set out in Price v State.
When the state seeks to regulate political speech, it bears the burden of showing that the restrictions are reasonable @@.
The standard of review for search and seizure under article I section 11 is set out in Gershoffer v State.
The standard of review under section 12 of article I, the due course of law clause, is roughly that of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Under the 14th Amendment, general or economic legislation is typically given rational basis review, while cases about the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, receive more exacting or strict scrutiny. When applying the 14th amendment to the states, courts provide a certain degree of deference due to considerations of comity and federalism, because the state and the federal government are co-equal sovereigns. This deference does not come into play when it is the state rather than the federal constitution at issue. Usually it is state rather than federal courts which interpret state constitutions. Here this court has made clear is it comfortable usurping that role. Erie counsels that this court may not substitute its own preferences, but is to follow the law as expressed by the state courts. The issue is whether a voter ID program, imposed by Rokita and carried out by White and the county, unauthorized by any valid statute, complies with due course of law under section 12.

crawford analysis
The standard of review for the First Amendment claim in this case is either Anderson v Celebrezze or Norman v Reed.
Crawford's controlling minority opinion , the First Amendment analysis requires application of the Anderson test. For this reason, the district and circuit court opinions in Crawford, which erroneously applied the deferential Burdick v Takushi test, and the two prior rulings in this case denying injunction, which erroneously relied on a strong presumption of constitutionality, cannot be relied on in evaluating this motion for summary judgment. Instead, this court is required to follow binding supreme court precedents.
Under Anderson (cite the 4 factors.)
In Crawford, there were no individual plaintiffs, and the concerns that about 1% of the voters would be unable or unlikely to comply with the voter ID barriers to voting was not held to constitute a severe burden.
This case presents different facts and different claims. Here, there is a plaintiff who is directly affected, who has been kept from voting since 2005. I have been prevented from voting because I am unwilling to comply with a procedure I know to be unconstitutional and void, which is a violation of my privacy, a violation of my franchise rights, and an unwarranted search of my person, papers and effects.
My case is not about me alone and my particular circumstances. It is not predicated on the fact that my wallet was stolen after I had submitted a provisional ballot, after being refused a regular ballot because I am unwilling to show ID, or that I had to drive 1200 miles, pay a fee, and then make three visits to the BMV where I paid another fee. My particular circumstances provide examples of the ways in which voters are burdened by the voter ID hurdles, but every Indiana voter has standing to do what I have done; to go try to vote without being subjected to an illegal voter ID program.
I am not alone in having been denied the vote. Over 1000 other cases are known. Other categories of people denied the vote as a result of voter ID include those who, like the nuns in Terre Haute, were turned away when trying to vote and not given provisional ballots. When, immediately after filing this lawsuit, I went over to the early voting desk at the county clerks office and tried to vote, I was initially turned away. It was only when I insisted on casting a provisional ballot that I was allowed to do so. [The facts of the 2008 general election, when I was turned away without being allowed to cast even an uncounted provisional ballot, are not at issue currently because the court has refused to allow the complaint to be supplemented to include the new facts which resulted from the denial of the injunction.]
But these cases, where people went to try to vote and were either turned away or were given provisional ballots that were not counted, are only the tip of the iceberg. For most of the people who either don't have ID or aren't willing to show it, there is no point in fruitlessly going to the poling place only to be turned away or given a ballot that won't be counted. They simply stay home. Not out of apathy, and not voluntarily, but because their right to participate in a free and open election has already been denied,and it would be a futile trip.
I stand in the shoes of every other voter.
It is not only those who were prevented from voting who have standing and are being harmed by the voter ID program. Every person who did cast an in person vote was subjected to an illegal and unconstitutional search and a violation of their right to be free from poll tax type barriers.
Whether or not voter ID is ultimately found to be or not be a violation of the rights of search and seizure, it is a part of the calculation of the burden for the purpose of determining whether there has been a severe burden triggering Norman v Reed strict scrutiny. Under the program, approximately 2 million searches were conducted. The result was that zero cases of attempted voter fraud were discovered. Prior to 2005, there were no prosecutions in Indiana for in person voter fraud. Subsequent to 2005, there have been no prosecutions in Indiana for in person voter fraud. As a means of detecting voter fraud, the program has been a complete failure. In Edmond v Indianapolis, the 7th circuit and supreme court invalidated a search program which had a hit rate of 9%. The voter ID program has a hit rate under 0.0001%.
Perhaps some in person ballot fraud is being deterred. But so many legitimate votes are also being deterred that there is no net gain in the validity of the ballots; instead there is a net loss. Voter ID is security theater; it presents an aura of combating fraud, without actually accomplishing anything useful. Those who are intent on illegally casting fraudulent votes are not prevented from doing so. They need only turn to other methods, such as the already popular absentee ballot method, or buying votes, or bribing polling officials, or hacking voting machine software, or whatever the other tricks are. I am not one of those who says there has never been any in person voter fraud in Indiana. My claim is that voter ID doesn't fix the problem and creates other greater problems.
One of the parts of the test is not only that the state interests outweigh the individual rights at issue, but there must be a good fit between the state's interests and the means used. Here, the program can be shown to have been somewhat effective at deterring voting by registered voters, probably mostly those of the Democratic persuasion. But it has not been shown to have deterred or detected any fraudulent votes. It has made elections less rather than more reliable.
It was at first somewhat successful as security theater, producing a false sense of election security among some members of the public. But currently, when more of the public has come to understand that voter ID was an illegal unconstitutional method for keeping nuns from voting that didn't work to catch fraudulent voters, it is difficult to give this factor much weight.
In Norman v Reed, a statute was construed such that the Harold Washington Party in Chicago needed 50,000 signatures rather than 25,000, to get ballot access.
The court found that the extra 25,000 signatures constituted a severe burden,and therefore that strict scrutiny would be applied. The court did not set out any test for what constitutes a severe burden. Unfortunately, the only known standard is the personal preferences of the judges. But if requiring 25,000 signatures is a severe burden, requiring 25,000 people to go to the BMV to get voter licenses should also be a severe burden. Conducting 2 million unwarranted searches, with the effect of ratcheting downwards the public's reasonable expectations of privacy, is a severe burden. Having the BMV refuse me an ID on 5 occasions, and having to make an in-person pilgrimage to my county of birth to petition for a new copy of my birth certificate, simply to get my already issued driver's license replaced, has been a severe burden. Crawford only considered the burden on some 1% of the voters. My case involves the burden on 100% of the voters, except those who would have voted absentee anyway. (In 2006, there was a 33% jump in absentee voting, suggesting that people were turning to absentee voting to avoid the in-person ID requirement. But most voters aren't eligible to vote absentee, nor am I. I do not have figures for 2008 or 2009.)
Here the better view is that the facts of this case constitute a severe burden,and Norman v Reed strict scrutiny should be applied. But the Anderson test is another way of expressing the same concerns. Here the burden on plaintiff and the voting public is significant, whether or not it meets whatever test the court sets out for "severe". These are to be balanced against the state interests, and then the fitness between the state interests and the action taken is weighed, to see whether the action is necessary. The only interest asserted by the county, that of complying with the statute, has vanished now that the statute has been voided. We do not know what interests the Intervenor state of Indiana will assert. The state's late intervention in this case happened around the same time as the court prematurely ended discovery, so there has been no opportunity to find out the state's position on this issue.

only county interest is following the statute.
state has yet to assert any interests.

unwarranted search is severe burden
impact on this plaintiff is severe burden

fraud detection
no public confidence aspect
what's the third?

factors in the county reply brief.

balance of the burden and the state interest:

article II claims
article I claims
Price v state
need a case for section 12.
4th a claim.
substantive due process/equal protection.
yick wo v hopkins
harper v virginia
citizens united - quote the stuff about you don't need a campaign finance lawyer.
find a good quote for "arbitrary"

“All regulations of the elective franchise, however, must be reasonable, uniform, and impartial; they must not have for their purpose directly or indirectly to deny or abridge the constitutional right of citizens to vote, or unnecessarily to impede its exercise; if they do, they must be declared void.” Blue at 111, 188 N.E. at 588.
Here, the purpose of the program is to indirectly deny and abridge the constitutional right to vote of those who either do not consent to a search or who are unable to comply with the search. Voter ID unnecessarily impedes the exercise of the right to vote. We know that is unnecessary because elections were conducted in Indiana, between 1819 and 2005, without the use of voter ID. Even those who contend voter ID is desirable should admit that it is not necessary.

Additionally, the Blue court stated: “It is for the
Legislature to furnish a reasonable regulation under which the right to vote is to be exercised, and it is uniformly held that it may adopt registration laws if they merely regulate in a reasonable and uniform manner how the privilege of voting shall be exercised.” Id. at 107, 188 N.E. at 586.

Article II Section 14 authorizes the legislature to enact reasonable rules for voter registration, in order to deter and prevent fraud. But section 14 does not authorize election officals to impose rules in the absence of valid legislation, and what it allows is registration, not additional layers of qualifications and licenses beyond the registration process.

posted by gt @ 6:57 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?