Idaho Supreme Court rules on whether new voting laws discriminate. What justices decided

Laws to change voter identification requirements will remain in effect after the Idaho Supreme Court on Thursday determined they do not violate the Idaho Constitution.

Two state laws enacted in 2023 removed student IDs from the list of IDs that can be used to register and vote, and they eliminated a provision that allows prospective voters to register using the last four digits of their Social Security number. The laws also created a new form of a free ID card, and they standardized proof-of-residency requirements and forms of eligible ID, which were previously different depending on how a voter chose to register.

The League of Women Voters and Babe Vote, a progressive voter drive group, sued the secretary of state over the laws and argued they violated the state constitution by burdening young voters and college students, and amounted to voter suppression by making it harder to vote. Idaho saw the largest increase in new young registered voters in the nation between 2018 and 2022, according to research from Tufts University.

The civic groups have said the laws created just another barrier from lawmakers who in the past few years have placed more restrictions on voting.

“It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” said Sam Sandmire, a spokesperson for Babe Vote. “They set up so many barriers that people will give up.”

Idaho is one of six states that now does not accept student IDs at polls, according to Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting laws. It’s one of nine states that request photo IDs at polls but allow identity verification by other means, according to the group. Thirteen states don’t require an ID to vote, and others allow voters to fill out provisional ballots without IDs.

Idaho Supreme Court sides with lawmakers

In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the voting law changes were legitimate. The justices did not agree with the organizations’ claims that the effects of the laws on younger voters, like college students, warranted high levels of judicial scrutiny. The court upheld a 4th Judicial District judge’s decision to end the case with a summary judgment before it went to trial.

In particular, the organizations had argued that the now-banned student IDs are free, and that the newly created “free” IDs would be unavailable to certain voters and still cost money to obtain. The new IDs require identity verification from a certified birth certificate, passport or other document, which generally cost money, Sandmire said. They argued that new residents with drivers licenses from other states would be unable to vote with their out-of-state IDs and also be ineligible for the free ID for six months.

“The limitation of the no-fee voter ID makes little sense in light of the proof-of-residency requirement and is unjustified and serves no purpose other than to make it more difficult for people who have moved to Idaho from other states to register to vote,” the organizations argued in a court filing.

Justice Robyn Brody called their reasoning “disingenuous,” because the laws still allow registered voters to vote without ID if they sign a sworn affidavit at the polls. Sworn affidavits, however, cannot be used to register to vote.

“I think that they missed a lot of information that would have been helpful to them in making a more informed decision, because we were not allowed to present our case in court,” Sandmire said. “We didn’t get to prove that there are people under these laws that cannot vote.”

From out-of-state college students who don’t drive, to disabled people who have trouble getting to their county’s office to present the new required documents, Sandmire said the laws put up barriers for a range of voters.

Brody argued that the removal of student IDs is “burdensome to some” but “does not effectively annul the right of suffrage.” She ruled that removing the IDs was within the bounds of the Legislature’s authority to regulate elections.

Access, security ‘are not competing objectives’

Secretary of State Phil McGrane’s office acknowledged the six-month limbo period before new voters can obtain a free ID and supported a new law passed this year to remove the waiting period that goes into effect in July, after the May primaries. The state has issued 60 free ID cards as of February, according to his office; 98% of voters vote with an ID card.

“We are pleased to see that the Idaho Supreme Court recognizes the importance of voting and that access to voting and the security of our elections are not competing objectives,” McGrane said in a Thursday news release. “Our office looks forward to collaborating with the League of Women Voters and Babe Vote to encourage more Idahoans to register and actively participate in the upcoming May 21 primary and Nov. 5 general elections.”

The two new voting laws went into effect in the last year. House Bill 340, which imposed new registration requirements, became active on July 1, 2023. House Bill 124, which removed student ID use at polls, took effect Jan. 1. Legislators passed several more voting-related laws this year, including one new law aimed at “ballot harvesting,” which makes it illegal to deliver someone else’s completed absentee ballot to a dropbox.

When asked to respond to complaints of voter suppression, Chelsea Carattini, a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, told the Statesman that the new voter ID laws are “the same for everyone across the board.”

Attorney General Raúl Labrador, whose office represented the secretary of state, called the ruling a “strong victory for election security.”

“The Idaho Legislature took steps to improve our election security, but rather than encouraging young people to obtain their free state voter IDs, advocacy groups took legal action against the state, alleging age discrimination,” Labrador said in a news release. “We are pleased with this victory but acknowledge liberal advocacy groups are bringing similar claims in federal court, and we will continue to defend these laws.”

A similar lawsuit brought last year by March for Our Lives, an organization that supports gun control, is proceeding in federal court and has a hearing scheduled for next month. That case argues that House Bill 124 targets young voters and violates the U.S. Constitution. One of the attorneys on the case is Terri Pickens, a Democratic candidate for governor.

Sandmire said “voter suppression” laws have made it more difficult to register voters, mandating documents like lease agreements that people don’t carry around or utility bills that some students don’t have. She said she suspects the law changes are aimed at young voters because the state’s Republican officials fears their votes.

“This Legislature has tried virtually everything in its power to prevent young, disabled, homebound, and working-class Idahoans from exercising” their right to vote, Sandmire said by text. “While the state may have won in court today, they have not won this battle. … We will fight to build a democracy in Idaho that works for everyone.”

Last month, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that several laws to restrict voting — including a law that eliminated student IDs — violated that state’s constitution. The lawsuit was brought by the state Democratic Party and Native American groups and was filed after the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted the new voting restrictions in 2021.