SB 91, introduced by Sen Young, appears to address the determination that Indiana’s Voter ID law is unconstitutional because of disparate treatment between in-person voting and absentee voting where the former is required to provide identification and the latter is not.
Title 3 of the Indiana Code concerning election law is always such a mess, it gives me a headache when I try to unravel it. I suspect that, in certain quarters, this is seen as a feature rather than a bug. Anyway, I’m not going to pretend I could spot anything unfortunate in this legislation if it’s there. In any case, SB 91 would require the election board to add the following to the absentee ballot application form:
(d) The form prescribed by the commission must require that a voter who requests an absentee ballot provide one (1) of the following:
(1) A description of and the identification number for the proof of identification the voter would submit if the voter were voting in person.
(2) The last four (4) digits of the voter’s Social Security number, if:
(A) the voter does not provide a description of the proof of identification; or
(B) the proof of identification does not have an identification number.
I’m not sure what “description” of identification means. “Well, it’s on paper and it’s kind of tan, and I think the font is Times New Roman.” Or maybe it just means “It’s my driver’s license and I double pinky swear that it isn’t expired.” Anyway, so far as I can see, this doesn’t really address the Court of Appeals’ objection unless in-person voters can also satisfy the Voter ID requirement by just giving the last four digits of their social security number.
Anyone who has to parse Title 3 (or any part of the IC, really) has my profound sympathy.
We need to elect some legislators who have a better grasp of grammar (and logic, and law, and history, and economics…while I’m wishing, can I have a pony, too?).
It is good that you can access a current copy of the Indiana Code online, though.