(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) — State attorneys are urging a federal judge to reject a request to block Indiana’s ban on using college identification cards to vote, arguing in new court filings that the law does not target young voters or make it harder for them to cast ballots.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office, representing Secretary of State Diego Morales and other state defendants, asked Indiana’s Southern District Court on Friday to deny a preliminary injunction sought by student and voting rights groups challenging the policy.

The plaintiffs — Count Us IN, Women4Change Indiana and Indiana University student Josh Montagne — are trying to halt enforcement of a 2025 law that explicitly bars student college IDs from being used as voter identification at the polls.

A February request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction is still pending. A status conference in the case is scheduled for June 9, but a ruling is likely to come before the upcoming May primary.

The state has argued that concerns about voter fraud, as well as the variety of student IDs, justify the ban. Their most recent filing maintains that the challengers have not shown the law violates the U.S. Constitution or that they will suffer irreparable harm before the case is resolved.

“SB 10 does not burden the right to vote,” state attorneys wrote in a new 43-page memorandum opposing the injunction. They argued that any burden created by the change is “minimal,” adding that only a small number of voters who previously relied on student IDs would be affected.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in May 2025 after Indiana lawmakers amended the state’s voter ID statute to explicitly exclude identification issued by educational institutions.

For years before that change, student IDs issued by several public universities could be used at polling places if they met state requirements. Those earlier rules allowed student IDs to be used if they included the prospective voter’s name, photo and a valid expiration date.

Voting rights advocates argue that eliminating student IDs disproportionately affects younger voters, who are less likely to possess driver’s licenses or other forms of identification.

In October, a federal judge rejected the state’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the constitutional claims to move forward.

Dispute over burden on voters

The plaintiffs argue the law — enacted last year as Senate Enrolled Act 10  — targets students and young voters by eliminating one of the “most accessible” forms of identification they commonly use.

They contend the change violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which prohibits voting discrimination based on age. 

Their February motion asked the court to temporarily block enforcement of the ban before the May 2026 primary election.

State lawyers, however, countered that the requirement to present other forms of identification is not a “meaningful” barrier.

“Obtaining valid voter ID is not a severe burden on the right to vote,” the state argued in the filing, noting that Indiana voters can use multiple forms of identification that satisfy the law’s requirements, including an Indiana driver’s license, a state identification card issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, a U.S. passport or passport card, or certain other government-issued photo IDs that meet state criteria.

State attorneys added that voters who lack ID can receive one “at no cost,” and that the state also provides a provisional ballot process for voters who appear at the polls without identification. Those voters would have to later visit the county election office to verify their identity.

The state also disputes the claim that the law targets students or younger voters.

“SB 10 does not increase the burden on the right to vote, nor does it target students or young people,” attorneys wrote.

The attorney general’s office argued that voter participation is driven more by “motivation,” rather than administrative barriers like identification requirements.

“It is voter motivation, not the need to obtain a photo ID, that is the decisive factor in voter participation,” the state wrote, citing decades of academic research on voting reforms that found “negligible effects on turnout.”

Attorneys pointed to testimonies from the student plaintiffs, arguing that neither of the two Indiana University students deposed in the case had taken steps to obtain a driver’s license or state ID. 

“For both students, the obstacle is not time, money, or lack of access to documents,” the filing said. “They simply don’t want to be responsible for keeping their identifying documents secure.”

State cites election administration interests

Indiana officials also defended the change as a policy decision intended to address concerns about the consistency and reliability of student identification cards.

They argued that state lawmakers had legitimate reasons for excluding student IDs from the list of acceptable voter identification.

“Student identification cards are not issued under any statewide election or motor vehicle legal standard, do not require proof of citizenship, lawful presence, or Indiana residency, and vary significantly by institution in format, security features, and issuance procedures,” the filing said.

Indiana’s voter ID law, though, is meant only to verify identification.

According to the state, the law advances several interests, including improving “uniformity” in acceptable voter IDs and simplifying election administration.

Attorneys also said the plaintiffs’ claims that the law was designed to “suppress” student voting are unsupported.

The state further argued that courts should be cautious about altering election rules close to an election — invoking the so-called “Purcell principle,” a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court doctrine which warns against late judicial changes to voting procedures that could confuse voters and election officials.

State lawyers also questioned whether the organizations bringing the lawsuit have the legal standing required to pursue the claims. They argued the groups have not demonstrated that anyone they serve will be unable to vote because of the law.

The attorney general’s office contends, too, the sweeping relief requested by the plaintiffs — a statewide order preventing enforcement of the law — would be improper.

Their filing argues that the groups “have not identified a single person who lacks another form of ID or will be unable to obtain another form of ID” because of the law.

Pending further action from the court, a full trial in the case is scheduled for January 2027.