983 F.3d 919
7th Cir.2020Background
- 2020 presidential election: Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes; Wisconsin certified results and selected ten electors on November 30, 2020.
- On December 2, 2020, President Trump sued Wisconsin Elections Commission, governor, secretary of state, and local officials under the Electors Clause, claiming state election administration altered the Legislature’s prescribed “Manner.”
- The complaint targeted three WEC guidance documents: (1) March 2020 guidance on “indefinitely confined” absentee voters (ID requirement), (2) August 2020 guidance endorsing absentee ballot drop boxes, and (3) pre-2016 guidance on correcting witness address info for absentee ballots.
- Wisconsin statutes appoint electors “by general ballot” and delegate election administration authority to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and municipal clerks.
- The district court held the President’s claims failed on the merits (Electors Clause did not encompass the alleged administrative changes, and in any event the Commission acted within legislatively delegated authority) and entered judgment for defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, adding that the President’s delay in bringing these challenges (post-certification) independently warranted dismissal under laches/Purcell timing principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / redressability | Trump alleged a concrete, particularized injury from the allegedly unlawful appointment of electors and sought voiding the election | Defendants argued relief cannot redress the President’s claimed injury fully and federal courts should avoid commanding state officials on state-law matters | Court found standing satisfied: alleged injury was concrete and traceable; a declaration voiding results could redress the harm enough to confer jurisdiction |
| Timeliness / laches / Purcell principle | Challenges to long-standing or pre-election guidance can be raised after certification | Defendants emphasized delay: guidance predated the election (some years) and President waited until after certification to sue | Court held the delay was inexcusable; laches and Purcell timing concerns independently foreclose relief |
| Scope of the Electors Clause — narrow reading | Electors Clause governs only the Manner of appointing electors (e.g., appointment method such as general election), not routine election administration | Defendants argued Wisconsin appointed electors by general election as the Legislature directed; administrative errors don’t change the Manner | Court agreed: under the narrow reading, plaintiff failed to state a claim because Wisconsin appointed electors by general ballot as prescribed |
| Scope of the Electors Clause — broader reading / delegation | Even if "Manner" includes conduct of elections, the Legislature delegated administration to the WEC; the guidance fell within that delegation and did not subvert the legislative scheme | Defendants argued statutory delegation authorized WEC guidance and any state-law disputes belong in state courts | Court held even on a broader construction, WEC acted under legislatively delegated authority and did not violate the Electors Clause; state courts are the ultimate interpreters of state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (partial relief can still redress injury for Article III purposes)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (traceability requirement for standing)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should avoid changing election rules close to voting)
- Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020) (federal courts should avoid announcing changes to election law near elections)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (discussing Electors Clause and consistency with legislative scheme)
- McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (historical breadth of state power to appoint electors)
- Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1990) (election-procedure claims must be pursued expeditiously)
- Gjersten v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 791 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1986) (courts must consider whether plaintiffs sought timely pre-election relief)
- Teamsters & Employees Welfare Tr. v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix, 283 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2002) (laches doctrine requires inexcusable delay that harms defendants)