Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
GPTKB entity
Statements (82)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:court_cases |
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Examined balance between access and security
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
07-21
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Influenced public policy on voting rights
Majority opinion emphasized state interests Constitutional validity of voter ID laws upheld Debate on election integrity Dissent highlighted potential voter suppression Legal challenges to voter ID laws Voter ID laws deemed constitutional |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Constitutional implications of voter ID laws
Set precedent for future voter ID legislation |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
April 28, 2008 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Justice_David_Souter gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer The burden of obtaining an ID is significant. The law creates unnecessary barriers to voting. The law is not justified by claims of voter fraud. The law is not necessary for election integrity. The law is overly broad. The law lacks sufficient safeguards. The law undermines the democratic process. The law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The state did not prove the necessity of the law. The law disproportionately affects minority voters. |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
April 28, 2008
|
| gptkbp:election |
6-3
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Post-2000 election reforms
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Voter identification requirements
Influenced voter ID laws in other states Increased voter ID laws across the U. S. |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Gregory_Crawford
gptkb:Marion_County_Election_Board |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:Indiana
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Voting_rights
gptkb:Constitution gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 Election law |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Voter ID laws
Burden on voters State interest in preventing voter fraud |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union
gptkb:Indiana_Attorney_General |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Indiana_voter_ID_law
gptkb:National_Voter_Registration_Act gptkb:Help_America_Vote_Act |
| gptkbp:material |
Challenge to Indiana's voter ID law
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive coverage in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The law was upheld
law upheld |
| gptkbp:political_impact |
Increased scrutiny of voter ID laws
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Anderson_v._Celebrezze
gptkb:Burdick_v._Takushi Subsequent voter ID cases |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens
Legitimized voter ID laws in the U. S. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud. The burden of obtaining an ID is not too high. The law is constitutional under the Voting Rights Act. The law does not impose a significant burden on voters. |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed opinions on voter ID laws
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Anderson_v._Celebrezze
gptkb:Shelby_County_v._Holder gptkb:Bush_v._Gore |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Debate on voter suppression
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Influenced other states' voter ID laws.
|
| gptkbp:state |
gptkb:Indiana
|
| gptkbp:vote_split |
6-3
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Burdick_v._Takushi
gptkb:Timmons_v._Twin_Cities_Area_New_Party |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|