Indiana maintains constitutionality of election law before Seventh Circuit

An Indiana University student and two state advocacy groups challenged Indiana's voter ID law, which prohibits the use of student IDs at polling places.CHICAGO (CN) — Indiana urged a puzzled Seventh Circuit panel Tuesday to uphold its law prohibiting voters from using school IDs at polling places.An Indiana University student and two state advocacy groups challenged the voter ID law soon after it was enacted in 2025. A lower court deemed it unconstitutional because it disproportionately burdens students and young voters and granted a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction days after the ruling, effectively reinstating the ban on school IDs while Indiana’s appeal proceeds.As the midterm elections draw closer, the panel pressed attorneys about the timing of the appeal and subsequent arguments.“I’m a little confused about what you expect us to do at this point,” U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, a Donald Trump appointee, said. “This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction. We stayed the preliminary injunction in the spring for Purcell reasons.”In 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez, the high court established that federal courts should not change election rules or redraw district maps in the period leading up to an election.“We’re not asking for the court to change the voting rules, but rather to reverse the district court for attempting to do exactly that,” Indiana Solicitor General James Barta said. The crux of his argument was that the current law places no further burden on voters than Supreme Court precedent allows.The students and advocacy groups challenged the law under the Anderson-Burdick doctrine. Based on two Supreme Court cases involving election law, the test uses a sliding-scale approach to evaluating election laws: The less significant the burden, the more relaxed the scrutiny.Indiana pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which determined that Indiana’s requirement that voters present government-issued IDs at the polls was not unconstitutional.The lower court rejected the precedent set forth in Crawford, particularly because it found that students could face difficulties in obtaining an ID. Aria Branch, an attorney for the appellees, discussed the unique burdens students face in obtaining government-issued identification, particularly because the required documentation is built around aspects of adult life.“For example, in order to obtain a driver’s license, you have to have proof of social security. Most adults work, and to have to present a W2 or a pay stub is not an issue. The rate of employment for students between ages of 18 and 24 is only 39.6%,” said Branch, an attorney with Ellis Legal. “Similarly, to obtain a driver’s license, you need to provide two documents that show proof of residency, but we know that a significant number of students live on campus housing, where they don’t have utility bills or mortgages or rental contracts in their name.”Attorneys for the state of Indiana argued that the law is facially neutral and does not pose unique burdens on faculty, staff and students at public universities.U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch II, said even if Crawford applies to this case, the case law overwhelmingly favors the state, which is enough to withstand a moderate burden.“So, we can send this back and forth like a yo-yo over the next year and a half, or we could just get rid of it in the next two months and be done with the case altogether, right?” the Trump appointee asked.Barta agreed, saying there are substantial benefits from an election administration standpoint to clarifying the rules well in advance.“I suppose for students, too, who may want to vote, they would have plenty of time to know that they need to get a voter ID,” Kirsch replied. “I guess the longer the uncertainty persists in the courts, the less certainty there is for students who want to vote and may or may not think that they can vote with their student ID.”U.S. Circuit Judge Joshua Kolar, a Joe Biden appointee, also appeared on Tuesday’s panel alongside Kirsch and St. Eve. The panel did not indicate when it might rule on the matter.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads