CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 1
Supreme Court Decision Crawford v. Marion County Election Board Royal
P McHenry
Helm School of Law/Government-Liberty University
Introduction
As legal citizens of the United States of America the right to vote is a right constitutional
guaranteed provision by several amendments to the Constitution. However the right to vote
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 2
was instituted after the civil war. During the ratification of the U. S. Constitution, Congress has
adopted:
The 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870) prohibits the denial of voting rights based on
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920) grants women the right to vote, prohibiting the
denial of suffrage based on sex.
The 24th Amendment (ratified in 1964) outlaws poll taxes, which were used in some
states to prevent African Americans from voting.
The 26th Amendment (ratified in 1971) lowers the voting age for all elections to 18, (U S
Const.
It's important to note these amendments, one by one eased the struggle for equal
voting rights and particularly for African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a
landmark piece of federal legislation that aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and
local levels (VRA 1965). The histology of the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in
reference to the 113th and 114th Congresses addresses H.R. 3899 and S. 1945 were
introduced in the 113th Congress that would have amended the VRA to add a new coverage
formula, among other provisions. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S. 1945 on
June 25, 2014. H.R. 885, an identical bill to the two 113th
Congress bills, has been introduced in the 114th Congress. Companion bills H.R. 2867
and S. 1659 would amend the VRA to add a more far-reaching coverage formula than
H.R. 885, among other provisions (VRA, 2015, p iii).
These reconstruction advocated state wide discretion in the application of voting rights.
Case in Chief
Crawford V. Marion County Election BD. (2008) 553 U.S. 18, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574
https:// supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/#tab-opinion-1962668
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 3
Question of Jurisdiction
Does the absence of state or federal photo identification unduly burden citizens' right to
vote violate the 14th amendment of the U S Constitution?
The Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens concurring Justice Scalia, the Chief Justice Roberts.
On summary judgment, the district court held that the amendment violated the federal
constitutional guarantee of equal protection. “It then entered a final order declaring the
amendment unconstitutional and enjoining the City and its agents from enforcing the
amendment in future elections” (ACLU v. Santillanes, 2007, p 711). On April 28, 2008, after the
entrance of the district court final order, the Supreme Court secured jurisdiction pursuant 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and decided the matter of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 18,
128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574, ), as neutral and non-discriminative (Crawford v. Marion County
Election Board, 2008).
Jurisdiction
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "No person
States shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (U.S.
Const.
amend. XIV, § 1). If a statute is challenged on the bases of due process or equal protection of
law violation, demonstrating a marginal claim that the statute deny a fundamental right to be
exercised, courts maybe petition for judicial review. “It will be presumed to be valid and will be
sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state
interest” (Crawford v Marion County 2008, p 2). Congress also maintain the power to enforce
the 14th and 15th Amendments of the federal government interest of individual’s acquisitions
and challenges of racially discriminatory voting practices (Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Consequential, these amendments are designed to protect voter’s rights, to sustains the federal
government diligent role of enforcing these rights and be exhausted by the doctoring of the
Stare Decisis. The doctrine of the stare decisis is a common legal term that employs, “Article 3,
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 4
Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that establishes the judicial branch, vests judicial power in the
Supreme Court and inferior courts, and outlines the terms and compensation of federal judges
(Article III sec I).
Bastiat (2007) once stated “that the only appropriate use of law is to protect natural
rights” (Bastiat 2007, p 1–3). The Electoral Count Act (ECA) overall objective of the reform is to restore
the appropriate constitutional boundaries. Bastiat’s (2007) three big ideas of appropriate legal restraints,
legal plunder, and the threat of collectivist coercion have been instrumental in today’s public policy
reform in U.S. government. Foley et al. (2022) point out that the original ECA from 1887 was vague.
Ambiguity in law is an opportunity for political actors to try to weaponize the unwritten reference and
abuse the system. The reform is an opportunity to remove any unnecessary complexity and return the
law to its intended function accordingly:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws (14th amend. Const.)
Crawford confirmed “that we must weigh the burdens imposed by a law affecting person's right
to vote against the justifications supporting the law” (Crawford v Marion C, 2008, p 1616).
The conflicting, ideas, ideals, and principles that shape our voting policy
Initially, the Crawford Case 1:05-CV-0634-SEB before the honorable Judge Susan E.
Baxter, of the US District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. According to the ballotpedia
this case was a lawsuit challenging Indiana's voter photo identification law.
The plaintiffs alleged that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by substantially
burdening the right to vote. The Amended Complaints filed “allege it was not a necessary or
appropriate way to combat election fraud and would disenfranchise qualified voters lacking the
required identification or facing unjustified burdens in obtaining it” (Crawford v Marion County,
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 5
2008, p 2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed both the initial
and amended complaints and affirmed the district court decision (p 2). Thereafter the Supreme
Court of the United States on a Writ of Certiorari, Crawford v Marion County Election Board, and
ultimately affirmed a judgment finding that the record did not support a facial attack on the
statute's validity (Crawford v Marion C, 2008).
“The District Court rejected petitioners' arguments and granted summary judgment for
the election officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed both
the opinion of the District Court and the Seventh Circuit's opinion” (Crawford v Marion C, 2008,
p1).
The impact that those conflicts have on the political power structures.
Many scholars and commentators expected the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board to settle the debate over the constitutionality of mandatory
photo identification laws for prospective voters. The issues brought before the districts courts
Voter ID
Law or the SEA 483 statute applies to in-person voting at both primary and general elections.
Compared to the Bastiat theory of life liberty and justice
Following the civil war and congress has passed several factors of voting rights that
affect our life, liberty and God given natural rights during the civil rights movement. Pursuant
the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights of 1965, Shelby County v. Holder (2013), discusses the
history of voter suppression that developed restrictive voter identification laws, the closure of
thousands of polling places nationwide, and limits on early voting has not been meet define
guidelines that would abort the many factors and claims if denial of the equal protection of law
from age race creed color location mechanical error and etc., would convince the Supreme
Court
Justices to intervene in state regulation. The electoral and public policy process in the United
States has been characterized as abusive in recent years (Foley, McConnell, Pildes, Smith, 2022).
The analysis of old and new bipartisan effort to clarify a core piece of electoral law, as the
Electoral Count Act (ECA), to restore the appropriate constitutional boundaries to a voting-rights
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 6
skepticism has not convinced the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to pass new voting legislation,
this authority has been the greater interest of the state. Frédéric Bastiat (2007) stated that “The
law should protect and defend life, liberty, and property, and not be used to favor partisan
causes and redistribute power” (p. 3). When it is used for any other purpose, it become a tool
of abuse. Foley et al. (2022) point out that the original ECA from 1887 was vague. Ambiguity in
law is an opportunity for political actors to try to weaponize and abuse the system. The reform
is an opportunity to remove any unnecessary complexity and return the law to its intended
function.
Even theorist
Bastiat’s (2007) illustrates legal plunder is a caution that law could be used to manipulate
government for the unfair enrichment or empowerment of some groups (pp. 9–12). Protecting
our democracy through electoral process, rooted in the rule of law and fair upon it’s face can
not be passed on to federal courts unless there is a constitution question at stake pursuant to
the doctrine of the Stare Decisis umbrelled by the U. s. constitution amendment article III
Section 1.
Actually, the Fix the Electoral Count Act article was used as a real-world example to show how
Bastiat’s big ideas could be applied in the contemporary U.S. public policy context.
Summary
Indiana's interest in preventing voter fraud in safeguarding public confidence in elections
are both weighty and legitimate. Petitioners failed to prove an excessive burden on any class of
voters that rises to the level of a constitutional question of law. However, the U.S. Constitution
doesn’t contain an explicit right to vote, except Article II almost all state constitutions do.
Regardless, the Supreme Court concluded that the burdens imposed by a photo identification
requirement did not substantially burden the right to vote. "A voter may lose, have stolen, or
may not resemble the photo in the identification for unknown are neither so serious nor so
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 7
frequent as to raise any question about the constitutionality of the photo identification
requirement" (Crawford, 128 S.Ct. p 1620).
Judgement
The Court characterized this matter as "neutral and nondiscriminatory." Although, there
was no majority opinion, but a balance scales for justice in light of the many arguments that can
be imposed under the pretense of racial, party, absence ballot, non-citizens other forms of
discrimination that is possible for the Court's reasonable expectation of the future.
We granted certiorari because of the importance of these cases to voting laws throughout
the country and we now affirm the validity of Indiana's Voter ID Law is neutral and non-
discriminative.
Conclusion
Indiana's interest in preventing voter fraud in safeguarding public confidence in elections
are legitimate and weighty but did not validate a broad attack on the constitutionality of the
Voter ID law. Importantly, these amendments give Congress and the federal government the
power to enforce the amendments’ protections of the right to vote through legislation — which
is a power Congress has used. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) relies on Congress’ power to
enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments as well as federal government and individuals
opportunities to challenge racially discriminatory voting
Biblical Reference
(Micah 6:8) “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God” (New International
Version). Policy reforms are to be done in this spirit of humility and justice, rather than
powerseeking chaos
Proverbs 20:10 condemns “differing weights” as tools of a biased system. Electoral law should
be as impartial as tax or criminal codes.
Romans 13:4 refers to rulers as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on
wrongdoers” (New International Version). The political theater of holding power by a
“tiebreaking” vote or objecting to Electoral votes is not part of that intended function.
Reference
ACLU v. Santillanes, (2007) 506 F.Supp.2d 598, 645-46; Aplt. App. 711.
CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) 8
Bastiat, F. (2007). Bastiat Collection, The. Ludwig von Mises Institute.. (Original work published
(1850) https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Bastiat%20Collection_4.pdf
Coleman, K. J. (2014). The voting rights act of 1965: Background and overview. Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43626.pdf
Foley, E. B., Foley McConnell, M. W., Pildes, R. H., & Smith, B. (2022). Fix the Electoral Count Act:
A nonpartisan reform could render the counting of votes in the Electoral
College simple, straightforward, transparent uncontroversial. How to avoid another
January 6. Hoover Digest, 86+.https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A704285495/GBIB?u=vic
Kingeter, T. (2022). The Electoral Count Act:" Regularly Given," the Denominator Problem, and
the 101st Vote. Seton Hall L. Rev., 53, 905. https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlr/vol53/iss3/5/
Marion County Election Board (2008) 553 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/#tab-opinion-1962668 Ray v. Texas, (2008)
No. 2-06-CV-385, 2008 WL 3457021.
U.S. Constitution Amendment. XIV, § 1
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
