On October 18, the 7th circuit heard oral arguments in Crawford v Rokita, the case over Indiana’s requirement that voters must produce a government photo-ID in order to vote at the polls. Those who don’t possess such ID may vote provisionally, but must return within 10 days to show such ID. The three judges were Richard Posner, Terence Evans, and Diane Sykes. Judge Posner was bothered by the fact that none of the plaintiffs actually lacks the needed ID. On the other hand, Judge Evans was bothered by the fact that Indiana’s attorney could not name one instance in Indiana at which someone had ever impersonated a voter.

On October 17, the Illinois State Board of Elections asked the 7th circuit to rehear Lee v Keith. This is the case in which the 7th circuit had ruled the Illinois ballot access law for independent candidates for the legislature to be too harsh. The law requires a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast, due in December of the year before the election. No independent candidate for the legislature has qualified in Illinois since 1980. The 7th circuit original decision was 3-0, so the state’s chances of getting a rehearing are low.

On October 16, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that a new law, requiring voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote at the polls, violates the Missouri Constitution. The case is Weinschenk v State, SC88039. The court pointed out that although state ID cards are free, they require a birth certificate, and birth certificates cost $15. Furthermore, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to get a birth certificate.

The case depends on the Missouri Constitution’s provision that “all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” The Court said that gives more voting rights protection than the U.S. Constitution does.

Ballot access cases now pending in state court in New Hampshire, Oklahoma and North Carolina, also depend on similar state constitutional provisions. The Missouri decision on Photo-ID will be somewhat useful to the pending ballot access cases in the state courts of these other states. Any time any state’s State Supreme Court says that its own Constitution gives more protection for voting rights than the U.S. Constitution does, that strengthens the principle in other states with similar language in their state’s constitution. The Oklahoma ballot access case has already lost in lower state court, because the lower state court didn’t seem to think that Oklahoma’s similar State Constitutional provision gives any more protection for voting rights than the U.S. Constitution.