Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

553 U.S. 181 (2008)

Quick Summary

Crawford (plaintiff) challenged Indiana’s voter ID law, arguing it placed unconstitutional burdens on voters. The Marion County Election Board (defendant) defended the law’s constitutionality. The dispute centered on whether requiring photo ID at polls unduly burdened individuals’ right to vote.

The Supreme Court held that Indiana’s interests in preventing voter fraud and ensuring electoral integrity were sufficient to uphold the law. The decision affirmed that although some voters might be inconvenienced, overall, the law did not impose excessive burdens on the right to vote.

Facts of the Case

In the state of Indiana, a new law was passed that required voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls. This law affected those who vote in person on election day or at a clerk’s office prior to election day. Exceptions were made for absentee voters and individuals residing in state-licensed facilities like nursing homes.

Crawford (plaintiff) and other voters argued that this law placed an undue burden on their constitutional right to vote and filed suit against the Marion County Election Board (defendant). The District Court upheld the law, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. The Indiana statute was challenged in federal district court by Crawford and other voters.
  2. The district court upheld the statute as constitutional.
  3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.
  4. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether Indiana’s law requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification imposes unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote.

Rule of Law

Even rational restrictions on the right to vote can be considered invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications, but states may impose even-handed restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court considered both the interests of the State of Indiana and the burdens imposed by its voter ID law. It recognized that states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and promoting voter confidence in the electoral process.

Though no evidence of in-person voter fraud was found in Indiana, the law was seen as a preventive measure against potential fraud. The Court also acknowledged that while some voters might face difficulties obtaining the required identification, Indiana offers free state-issued photo IDs, and provisions such as provisional ballots mitigate these challenges.

The majority opinion did not find that the law’s requirements posed substantial burdens on most voters’ right to vote. It concluded that the state’s interests were sufficiently weighty to justify SEA 483 under a facial challenge, emphasizing the need for secure and reliable electoral processes.


The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, upholding Indiana’s voter ID law as constitutional.

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, expressing concern that the law disproportionately affected certain groups of voters and was not justified by the evidence of voter fraud. Justice Breyer also dissented separately, questioning whether the state’s interests outweighed the burden on voters.

Key Takeaways

  1. The State has legitimate interests in deterring voter fraud, modernizing elections, and promoting voter confidence which can justify certain voting regulations.
  2. A facial challenge to a statute requires showing that it is unconstitutional in all of its applications, which Crawford failed to do.
  3. The provision of free state-issued photo IDs and provisional ballots helped to mitigate the burden on voters imposed by Indiana’s voter ID law.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What are the considerations for determining if a voting regulation is constitutionally permissible?

A regulation must have a legitimate state interest, such as preventing voter fraud or maintaining electoral integrity. It should be even-handed and not impose unreasonable burdens on the right to vote. Any restrictions must be related to voter qualifications or safeguarding the electoral process.

  • For example: Requiring proof of residence can be seen as a legitimate interest to ensure only eligible residents vote in local elections.

How does the provision of alternatives, like provisional ballots, affect the evaluation of voter regulation burdens?

Alternatives like provisional ballots can mitigate potential burdens imposed by voting regulations by providing a safety net for those who cannot comply with certain requirements on Election Day, thus supporting the law’s constitutionality.

  • For example: A state might allow individuals without proper identification to vote provisionally, with their votes counted once their identity is confirmed post-election.

In what ways can a state demonstrate its interest in modernizing elections and improving voter confidence?

A state can demonstrate this through measures aimed at enhancing the security and efficiency of the voting process, such as implementing electronic voting systems or auditing procedures, while ensuring these measures do not prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote.

  • For example: Introducing digital polling books to streamline voter check-in while still allowing same-day registration to accommodate prospective voters.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law