Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008)
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's Voter ID Law, ruling that the law does not impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it serves a legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud and ensuring the integrity of elections.
In the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court decided that Indiana's law requiring voters to show a photo ID when voting in person is legal. This ruling matters because it means states can set rules to help prevent voter fraud, which is intended to keep elections fair and trustworthy. For consumers, this case is relevant if you're planning to vote in person; it reminds you to bring a valid photo ID to ensure your vote counts.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Indiana required all residents who voted in person to present a photo identification that had been issued by the state or federal government. Groups representing minorities and elderly individuals joined the local Democratic Party in claiming that this law infringed on the right to vote.
Whether Indiana's photo identification law for in-person voting imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The state has a significant interest in verifying voter identification information, and the Court believed that requiring a photo ID was a minimal burden for most individuals. Even though voting is a fundamental right, it does not need to be free from any burdens at all.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 9, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court vacated the order of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the election procedures implemented under Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship and identification for voting, were precleared under the Voting Rights Act and did not necessarily disenfranchise qualified voters.
Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008)
Consumer LostA state does not need to obtain fresh preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act to reinstate an election practice that was in effect prior to the invalidation of a subsequently enacted law, as the invalidated law is considered to have never gained "force or effect.
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that Washington's Initiative 872, which established a top-two primary system, does not impose a severe burden on political parties' associational rights under the First Amendment, and therefore is not facially unconstitutional.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are non-justiciable under the Constitution, meaning that federal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate such claims, while also affirming that certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act may still apply to specific districts.