InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

William Crawford, et al., Petitioners v. Marion County Election Board et al.

The Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

553 U.S. 181 · No. 07-21 · 2007 term · Roberts Court

Decided Apr 28, 2008 · argued Jan 9, 2008

Civil rights · Voting

Majority opinion: John Stevens

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. William Crawford, et al., Petitioners lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

William Crawford, et al., Petitioners was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2007 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsAlitoScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
William Crawford, et al., PetitionersVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
Respondent
Marion County Election Board et al.County government or county governmental unit, except school district (Indiana)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 28, 2008DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. William Crawford, et al., Petitioners lost.
  2. Jan 9, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Illinois Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

49 other argued cases since 1946 on voting, newest first.

  1. Watson v. Republican National Committee146 S. Ct. 2165Jun 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2165Civil rights5–45–4 band

  2. Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections607 U.S. 71Jan 14, 2026 · 607 U.S. 71Civil rights7–27–2 band

  3. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP144 S. Ct. 1221May 23, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1221Civil rights6–36–3 band

  4. Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP142 S. Ct. 2191Jun 23, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2191Civil rights8–18–1 band
  5. Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca140 S. Ct. 2316Jul 6, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2316Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  6. Chiafalo v. WashingtonLandmark · Voting and redistricting140 S. Ct. 2316Jul 6, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2316Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  7. Rucho v. Common CauseLandmark · Voting and redistricting139 S. Ct. 2484Jun 27, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2484Civil rights5–45–4 band

  8. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute138 S. Ct. 1833Jun 11, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1833Civil rights5–45–4 band

  9. Bethune-Hill v. Va Bd. of Elections137 S. Ct. 788Mar 1, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 788Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  10. Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission578 U.S. 253Apr 20, 2016 · 578 U.S. 253Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  11. Evenwel v. Abbott578 U.S. 54Apr 4, 2016 · 578 U.S. 54Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  12. Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al.570 U.S. 1Jun 17, 2013 · 570 U.S. 1Civil rights7–27–2 band

  13. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.Landmark · Voting and redistricting531 U.S. 98Dec 12, 2000 · 531 U.S. 98Civil rights5–45–4 band

  14. Harold F. Rice v. Benjamin J. Cayetano, Governor of Hawaii528 U.S. 495Feb 23, 2000 · 528 U.S. 495Civil rights7–27–2 band

  15. Carl T. C. Gutierrez and Madeleine Z. Bordallo v. Joseph F. Ada and Felix P. Camacho528 U.S. 250Jan 19, 2000 · 528 U.S. 250Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Murphy J. Foster, Jr., Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. G. Scott Love, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, and Bennie Baker-Bourgeois522 U.S. 67Dec 2, 1997 · 522 U.S. 67Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. Hunter et al. v. Underwood et al.471 U.S. 222Apr 16, 1985 · 471 U.S. 222Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  18. Rogers et al. v. Lodge et al.458 U.S. 613Jul 1, 1982 · 458 U.S. 613Civil rights6–36–3 band

  19. Rodriguez et al. v. Popular Democratic Party et al.457 U.S. 1Jun 7, 1982 · 457 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  20. Williams et al. v. Brown et al.446 U.S. 236Apr 22, 1980 · 446 U.S. 236Civil rights6–36–3 band
  21. City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Bolden et al.446 U.S. 55Apr 22, 1980 · 446 U.S. 55Civil rights6–36–3 band

  22. Holt Civic Club et al. v. City of Tuscaloosa et al.439 U.S. 60Nov 28, 1978 · 439 U.S. 60Civil rights6–36–3 band
  23. Hill, Attorney General of Texas v. Stone et al.421 U.S. 289May 12, 1975 · 421 U.S. 289Civil rights5–36–3 band
  24. Richardson, County Clerk and Registrar of Voters of Mendocino County v. Ramirez et al.Landmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights418 U.S. 24Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 24Civil rights6–36–3 band

  25. O'Brien et al. v. Skinner, Sheriff, et al.414 U.S. 524Jan 16, 1974 · 414 U.S. 524Civil rights7–27–2 band
  26. Goosby et al. v. Osser et al.409 U.S. 512Jan 17, 1973 · 409 U.S. 512Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  27. Roudebush v. Hartke et al.405 U.S. 15Feb 23, 1972 · 405 U.S. 15Civil rights5–27–2 band
  28. Gordon et al. v. Lance et al.403 U.S. 1Jun 7, 1971 · 403 U.S. 1Civil rights7–27–2 band
  29. Oregon v. Mitchell, Attorney GeneralLandmark · Federalism400 U.S. 112Dec 21, 1970 · 400 U.S. 112Civil rights5–45–4 band
  30. City of Phoenix et al. v. Kolodziejski399 U.S. 204Jun 23, 1970 · 399 U.S. 204Civil rights5–36–3 band
  31. Evans et al. v. Cornman et al.398 U.S. 419Jun 15, 1970 · 398 U.S. 419Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  32. Cipriano v. City of Houma et al.395 U.S. 701Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 701Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  33. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 et al.395 U.S. 621Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 621Civil rights5–36–3 band
  34. McDonald et al. v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago et al.394 U.S. 802Apr 28, 1969 · 394 U.S. 802Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  35. Harper et al. v. Virginia Board of Elections et al.Landmark · Voting and redistricting383 U.S. 663Mar 24, 1966 · 383 U.S. 663Civil rights6–36–3 band

  36. Harman et al. v. Forssenius et al.380 U.S. 528Apr 27, 1965 · 380 U.S. 528Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  37. United States v. Mississippi et al.380 U.S. 128Mar 8, 1965 · 380 U.S. 128Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  38. Louisiana et al. v. United States380 U.S. 145Mar 8, 1965 · 380 U.S. 145Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  39. Carrington v. Rash et al.380 U.S. 89Mar 1, 1965 · 380 U.S. 89Civil rights7–18–1 band
  40. Anderson et al. v. Martin375 U.S. 399Jan 13, 1964 · 375 U.S. 399Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  41. Gomillion et al. v. Lightfoot, Mayor of Tuskegee, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity364 U.S. 339Nov 14, 1960 · 364 U.S. 339Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  42. United States v. Alabama et al.362 U.S. 602May 16, 1960 · 362 U.S. 602Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  43. United States v. Thomas, Registrar of Voters of Washington Parish, Louisiana, et al.362 U.S. 58Feb 29, 1960 · 362 U.S. 58Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  44. United States v. Raines et al.362 U.S. 17Feb 29, 1960 · 362 U.S. 17Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  45. Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections360 U.S. 45Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 45Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  46. Terry et al. v. Adams et al.345 U.S. 461May 4, 1953 · 345 U.S. 461Civil rights8–18–1 band

  47. Ray, Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama, v. Blair343 U.S. 214Apr 15, 1952 · 343 U.S. 214Civil rights5–27–2 band

  48. Ray, Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama, v. Blair343 U.S. 154Apr 3, 1952 · 343 U.S. 154Civil rights5–27–2 band

  49. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri342 U.S. 421Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 421Civil rights8–18–1 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.