Sunday, November 02, 2014
As a final point, because the majority finds the law constitutional, the majority is not required to
address the State’s contention that these plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the voter ID law, and
does not do so. I believe all citizens have the standing to attack a statute that unconstitutionally denies
any voter the right to exercise his or her electoral franchise. We all have an interest in an election that is
lawful, and the right to vote is meaningful only if others of like mind are also entitled to vote according to
the Constitution. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a right that is more clearly a ―public right‖ than the 7
right to vote and participate in a lawful election. It therefore may be enforced under the public standing
doctrine long recognized by this Court and most recently reconfirmed in Cittadine v. Department of
Transportation, 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003).
In sum, the plaintiffs’ allegations of substantial impediments to the exercise of the right to vote are
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint. I would remand this case to permit the
plaintiffs to attempt to prove their case. Boehhm, dissenting in Rokita v LWV
Because there is not article III, standing is different in Indiana courts than in federal courts.
I recently found a lawprof post criticizing my litigation in Stewart v Marion County Election Board,
saying I didnt have standing, so I've been thinking about this.
I think the district court was wrong in saying I didn't have standing, but I didn't appeal that case.
For more on standing see Majors v Abell (posner) and Stewart v Taylor (S.D Ind. 1997).
address the State’s contention that these plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the voter ID law, and
does not do so. I believe all citizens have the standing to attack a statute that unconstitutionally denies
any voter the right to exercise his or her electoral franchise. We all have an interest in an election that is
lawful, and the right to vote is meaningful only if others of like mind are also entitled to vote according to
the Constitution. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a right that is more clearly a ―public right‖ than the 7
right to vote and participate in a lawful election. It therefore may be enforced under the public standing
doctrine long recognized by this Court and most recently reconfirmed in Cittadine v. Department of
Transportation, 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003).
In sum, the plaintiffs’ allegations of substantial impediments to the exercise of the right to vote are
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint. I would remand this case to permit the
plaintiffs to attempt to prove their case. Boehhm, dissenting in Rokita v LWV
Because there is not article III, standing is different in Indiana courts than in federal courts.
I recently found a lawprof post criticizing my litigation in Stewart v Marion County Election Board,
saying I didnt have standing, so I've been thinking about this.
I think the district court was wrong in saying I didn't have standing, but I didn't appeal that case.
For more on standing see Majors v Abell (posner) and Stewart v Taylor (S.D Ind. 1997).
Comments:
Post a Comment
