The Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Photo by Whitney Downard, Indiana Capital Chronicle

By Leslie Bonilla Muñiz
Indiana Capital Chronicle

INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge on Tuesday, Oct. 14 rejected the state of Indiana’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a ban on student IDs for voting.

Judge Richard L. Young, of Indiana’s Southern District Court, noted that courts can only grant such dismissals when a complaint’s claims aren’t plausible. He found that the lawsuit’s First, Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment allegations cleared that bar.

“The court fails to see how – absent any indication of fraud unique to student IDs – general fraud concerns can likewise justify the elimination of a form of photo ID that has been accepted for 20 years and otherwise complies with the voter ID law’s neutral requirements,” the denial reads.

Indiana’s 2005 photo ID law requires that government-issued documents include the prospective voter’s name, photo and a valid expiration date to be considered “proof of identification.”

Public college and university ID cards with those details were valid at the polls – until July 1, when Senate Enrolled Act 10 took effect. The term “proof of identification,” according to the new law, “does not include a document issued by an educational institution.”

Voting rights groups Count Us IN and Women4Change Indiana, along with student Josh Montagne, filed suit in May, about two weeks after the law’s passage. They claim the law imposes an undue burden on Indiana students’ right to vote and discriminates on the basis of age.

The state has argued that concerns about voter fraud, as well as the variety of student IDs, justify the ban.

In his denial, Young observed that students may struggle more than others to get an alternate form of ID. They are less likely than other Indiana residents to have a driver’s license, he wrote – or have the time, transportation and documentation needed to get a state ID card.

He described the law as “a somewhat heavier” imposition on students’ and young voters’ right to vote, which “requires stronger scrutiny of the state’s asserted interests.”

The state’s interests – fraud fighting and consistency -were found to be not “particularly strong.”

During the legislative process, officials repeatedly argued that a student ID doesn’t prove someone is an Indiana resident.

But, Young noted, Indiana’s voter ID law was designed to verify that someone at the polls is the person they claim to be, not to check residency. It also allows photo IDs issued by the federal government, which don’t include state residency information.

The state has also argued that the ban solves inconsistencies between student IDs issued by public universities, which are eligible, and private universities, which are ineligible.

Before the ban, any form of ID that met the criteria was allowed, but now, public college or university IDs are “categorically excluded” even if they do meet the requirements. Young added that exceptions for types of ID that don’t meet the criteria – Indiana Code has a lengthy list of federal documents without expiration dates – still qualify for the polls.