Case Summary
LWVID and BABE Vote filed an amicus brief supporting a challenge to HB 124 and HB 340, which restricted the IDs accepted for voter registration and voting. The bills forbade the use of student IDs as voter ID and to register to vote, respectively. HB 340 also forbade other types of ID from being used in voter registration. The brief highlighted the effects of these changes on vulnerable populations, including student voters and voters living in nursing homes without a current ID.
In 2023, the Idaho Legislature passed two bills, HB 124 and HB 340, which limited the forms of ID accepted for voting and voter registration. HB 124 banned the use of student IDs as voter ID, while HB 340 did the same for voter registration. HB 340 also mandated the use of current drivers’ licenses, passports, tribal IDs, or concealed carry permits as the only accepted proof of identity for voter registration.
LWVID and BABE Vote subsequently filed a state court lawsuit in March 2023, asserting HB 124 violated the Idaho Constitution’s provisions guaranteeing equal protection under the law and the fundamental right to vote. The plaintiffs asserted the ban on student ID was illegal age discrimination and that there was no valid purpose for imposing such a burden upon young voters. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by a state trial court, which applied rational basis review — the form of judicial review most deferential to the government. This ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Idaho state Supreme Court.
Concurrently, March for Our Lives and the Idaho Alliance for Retired Americans filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against HB 124 and HB 340. The complaint argued HB 124 and HB 340 violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by intentionally discriminating against younger voters, and that HB 340 also violated both the Twenty-Fourth Amendment’s ban on poll taxes and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On September 17, 2024, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The ruling stated that the plaintiffs failed to show HB 124 and HB 340 violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by intentional discrimination against younger voters. The court also ruled that HB 340 did not violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On February 14, 2025, LWVID and BABE Vote filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting the plaintiffs. The brief pointed out the consequences of HB 124 and HB 340, including the disenfranchisement of hundreds of students during the 2024 election and the disenfranchisement of homebound voters living with disabilities. The amici urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
LWVID was represented in this matter by Perkins Coie.
LWV Timeline
Plaintiffs file lawsuit
Plaintiffs file a federal lawsuit asserting HB 124 violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs file amended complaint
Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, adding claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Twenty-Fourth Amendment against HB 340.
District Court grants summary judgment to defendants
The District Court grants defendants summary judgment, ruling neither HB 124 nor HB 340 violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and that HB 340 does not violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or Equal Protection Clause.
Plaintiffs appeal District Court ruling
The plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs file opening brief
The plaintiffs file their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit, arguing the District Court had erred by failing to consider evidence of discrimination against young voters when enacting the bills, among other errors.
LWVID files amicus brief
LWVID and BABE Vote file an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in their appeal. The brief points out the disenfranchisement caused by the two bills and requests reversal of the District Court’s summary judgement order.
Oral argument is held
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument.