Opinion ID: 171428
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The justifications for the photo identification requirement

Text: We must balance the burdens imposed by the requirement against the justifications for the law. The City maintains that, consistent with the stated findings of the Albuquerque City Council, the photo identification requirement is intended to prevent voter fraud and in-person impersonation at polling locations. Aplt. Br. at 4; Aplt.App. 23-24. The district court concluded that this stated goal, alone, was insufficient and that the City had failed to meet its burden because it presented no evidence of voter fraud or voting irregularities among Albuquerque voters who vote in-person. Santillanes, 506 F.Supp.2d at 615. The district court concluded that the City must bear the burden of providing a reasoned explanation, supported by at least some admissible evidence, to show the [photo identification requirement] is tailored to advance an important governmental interest. Id. at 636. It noted that the City did not present any expert testimony concerning the existence of fraud in Albuquerque elections, nor did it present any evidence regarding other efforts to prevent voter fraud or to educate the electorate of the new identification requirements. Id. at 615. As a result, it held that the law was not adequately tailored to meet the City's interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud at the polls. Id. at 641. In requiring the City to present evidence of past instances of voting fraud, the district court imposed too high a burden on the City. Just as the Supreme Court did not require Indiana to present specific instances of past conduct to justify its photo identification requirement, we do not require Albuquerque to make such a showing. In Crawford, Indiana presented voter fraud as one of its justifications for its photo identification law, and the Court concluded that such a justification was sufficient. Crawford, 128 S.Ct. at 1617, 1623. The Court did not require any showing from Indiana regarding past instances of fraud. Instead, the Court relied on the existence of flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country [that] have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists. Id. at 1619. The resolution submitting this measure to a vote echoes those concerns. Aplt.App. 23. Prevention of voter fraud and voting impersonation as urged by the City are sufficient justifications for a photo identification requirement for local elections.