488 F.Supp.3d 776
W.D. Wis.2020Background
- Four consolidated suits challenged Wisconsin election administration for the Nov. 3, 2020 general election, seeking preliminary injunctive relief because of COVID-19–related risks to absentee and in‑person voting.
- April 2020 primary exposed massive absentee demand, USPS and local-mail delays, thousands of late/unreceived or rejected absentee ballots, and severe poll‑worker shortages that forced polling‑place consolidation and long lines.
- WEC (split 3–3) said it lacked unilateral authority to change statutory deadlines; Legislature, RNC and RPW intervened to oppose broader relief; several dismissal motions were litigated.
- Plaintiffs sought multiple accommodations (e.g., extend online/mail registration deadline; extend absentee‑ballot receipt deadline; relax witness and ID rules; permit email/online replacement ballots; relax election‑official residency rule).
- The court granted limited, targeted relief: extended online/mail registration to Oct. 21, 2020; required WEC to publish its March guidance on “indefinitely confined”; extended absentee receipt deadline to Nov. 9, 2020 for ballots postmarked by Nov. 3; allowed emailed/online replacement ballots Oct. 22–29, 2020 for voters who timely requested but did not receive mailed ballots; permitted non‑county‑resident election officials for Nov. 2020; stayed the order 7 days for possible appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of online/mail registration deadline | October 14 cutoff will force many to risk in‑person registration or be disenfranchised; extend to Oct. 30 (or at least one week). | Voters have notice of pandemic; state needs time to prepare voter rolls; deadline ensures administrative order. | Granted narrowly: extended to Oct. 21 (balances voter access and administrative needs). |
| Absentee‑ballot receipt deadline (postmark rule) | Statutory receipt‑by‑election‑day will disenfranchise many given USPS and volume; permit ballots postmarked by election day and received later. | Extending receipt undermines prompt results and state interests. | Granted with postmark limit: ballots mailed and postmarked by Nov. 3 may be counted if received by Nov. 9. |
| Witness‑signature requirement for absentee ballots | Requirement prevents homebound or fearful voters from returning valid ballots; propose affidavits/self‑certification or other workarounds. | Requirement preserves ballot integrity; alternatives risk fraud and administrative disruption; Seventh Circuit resisted broad waiver. | Denied: court found plaintiffs not likely to prevail; state interests and administrability outweigh requested modification. |
| Electronic/email delivery of replacement absentee ballots | Narrow relief for voters who timely requested/were mailed ballots but never received them by mail; allow email/online replacement Oct. 22–29. | Emailing ballots poses security and administrative burdens; statute limits non‑military electronic delivery. | Granted narrowly for Oct. 22–29 to voters who timely requested and were mailed ballots but did not receive them. |
| Election‑official county‑residency requirement | Residency requirement reduces available poll workers and will exacerbate shortages; relax for Nov. 2020. | Requirement supports local control and decentralized administration. | Granted for Nov. 3, 2020 only: non‑county residents may serve as election officials. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (government posture can supply adversity for standing even when it agrees with plaintiffs on merits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, causation, and redressability)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test applied to burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refines Anderson balancing of burden vs. state interests)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (court orders affecting elections risk voter confusion, particularly close to an election)
- Luft v. Evers, 963 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2020) (assess burdens in context of the state election code as a whole; right to vote is personal and state must accommodate)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claims for damages against states)
- Bogan v. Scott‑Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (legislative immunity protects legislators for legitimate legislative acts)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) (legislative immunity covers legislative decisions not to act)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (applies Anderson‑Burdick framework to photo ID challenges)