The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Indiana case on whether voters at the polls must show government photo-ID on January 9. The two defendants are the Secretary of State of Indiana (Todd Rokita, a Republican) and the Marion County Election Board. Marion County is co-terminous with the city of Indianapolis, and is Indiana’s most populous county.

The Secretary of State’s brief has not yet been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Marion County just filed its brief. In substance, the Marion County brief sides with the plaintiffs! This is very unusual. However, it should be noted that the Marion County Election Board consists of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican.

Technically, the Marion County brief is neutral. It says on page one, “The Election Board takes no position on the constitutionality of the Voter Identification Statute.” A footnote explains that under Indiana law, the election board is not permitted to argue that a state law is unconstitutional.

However, the substance of the brief is entirely on the side of the voters who challenged the state law. The Marion County brief says that voter ID is not needed at the polls because polling place officials are frequently people who have lived in that neighborhood for decades and who tend to know their neighbors. The brief also says that parties are permitted to have challengers present. The brief also notes that the law requires the voter to sign the precinct register, and the register already has a copy of that voter’s signature (from the voter’s registration form).

The brief also says that impersonating a voter is a felony. Also, the brief says that the voter ID law has prevented certain qualified individuals from voting. And, the brief says that no one has been known to impersonate a voter at the polls, ever, in Marion County. The brief criticizes the 2-1 decision of the 7th circuit, a decision which had upheld the law. The brief’s last sentence is, “Because Indiana’s Voter ID law has deprived some otherwise-qualified persons from exercizing their right to vote, and because there has been no showing of in-person voter impersonation fraud, this Court should apply close scrutiny to the statute.”

Thanks to Rick Hasen’s election law blog for this news. That blog has a link to the brief. See http://electionlawblog.org.

On November 28, the New York State Court of Appeals agreed to hear Conroy v State Committee of the Independence Party. This is the internal dispute between the state Independence Party and the New York city branches of that party.

The same Court had agreed to hear a similar case, Master (Chair of the Working Families Party) v Pohanka, on October 18, 2007.

Both cases are over whether a state party can have bylaws that take control over local nominations away from the local officers of the party, and lodge that control in the hands of the state officers. There have been surprisingly few court decisions around the nation over this issue, during the last 100 years.

On November 29, the Illinois legislature went home for the year, without having passed HB 1685, the National Popular Vote Plan for presidential elections. It is possible the Governor will recall the legislature in December, however. The state has much pressing legislative business unresolved.