Student ID laws get their day in court

BOISE — The Idaho Supreme Court will consider whether two laws that regulate acceptable voter identification for registration and at the polls effectively deny the fundamental right to vote for some people.

During a hearing Monday, an attorney for the group Babe Vote and the League of Women Voters of Idaho argued the laws do heavily restrict this right, especially for young people and older voters or others who don’t have a current Idaho driver’s license.

“This case is unquestionably about the right to vote,” attorney Matthew Gordon told the justices Monday.

Lawyers for Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane said that the Legislature is entitled to regulate voting and registration to ensure safe elections.

The case centers on HB 124 and HB 340, both of which were passed this year. HB 124 removed student ID cards as an acceptable form of voter identification at the polls. HB 340 created a list of valid ways to show proof of residency, added requirements for voter IDs when registering to vote, and required the Idaho Transportation Department to provide free identification cards for those who needed them for voting.

Babe Vote and the League of Women voters challenged the laws, saying they made registering new voters difficult and confusing and that it disenfranchised student voters.

Ada County District Court Judge Samuel Hoaglund in October dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that the laws don’t violate the right to vote because they didn’t “unduly burden voters.”

Gordon argued Monday that the district court should have allowed discovery — which is a pretrial process of obtaining and sharing evidence and information — so that the plaintiffs could demonstrate how the laws negatively impacted the right to vote.

Josh Turner, interim solicitor general in the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, argued on behalf of McGrane that the Legislature allowed student IDs for voter identification in 2010 and it is thus under its purview to amend the law. He said concerns over inconsistency in how student IDs are issued led to the laws, both of which are part of the state “reasonably regulating” voting, he said.

“These obstacles are part of participating in society,” Turner said. “Do they deny the right to vote? No.”

He said that other options such as signing a voter affidavit at the polls or obtaining the free government-issued ID from ITD are ways in which those who don’t have a current Idaho driver’s license can still participate.

Under the law, the free license recipient may obtain a free four-year identification card only if they haven’t had a current driver’s license in the prior six months.

Gordon argued that the conditions on the free ID still prevent many from using it as an option and many voters don’t know about the affidavit process.

Supreme Court justices Monday questioned whether the laws really restrict the right to vote or just make it more difficult in some cases.

“The facts in this case I don’t think are near as egregious as you’re suggesting they are,” Justice Gregory Moeller said to Babe Vote and League of Women Voters’ attorneys.

Gordon said that for some, the laws are onerous enough to effectively restrict access of otherwise eligible voters.

Although there have been no documented cases of voter fraud using student IDs, Turner said that the state still had a legitimate interest in tightening security on elections in order to prevent fraud. Gordon argued that the Legislature made the decision because it didn’t want students to vote.

Gordon also contended that the level of scrutiny used by the court to evaluate the challenged law was too low, and that because the laws involved a fundamental right to voting, that there should be a stricter level of review on the case.

The district court judge used what’s called a rational basis review — the lowest level of scrutiny applied to laws challenged as unconstitutional. Under this level of review, the challenger must prove the government has no legitimate interest in the law and there is no reasonable link between the challenged statute and its goals, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

The laws’ challengers Monday said the court should use strict scrutiny — the highest level of review that’s often used to determine constitutionality when there’s alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause or a “fundamental right” is threatened.

Justice Colleen Zahn indicated at the hearing Monday that there likely wasn’t enough evidence included in the record to determine an outcome based on strict scrutiny, if the court were to decide it applies.

The justices will decide whether to reverse the district judge’s dismissal and apply the strict scrutiny test or it may remand the case back to the district court.

Guido covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News and Idaho Press of Nampa. She may be contacted at lguido@idahopress.com and can be found on Twitter @EyeOnBoiseGuido.