196 F. Supp. 3d 893
E.D. Wis.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Wisconsin voters) challenged 2011 Wis. Act 23 (photo ID law), alleging it burdens voting rights and violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; district court previously found violations and enjoined enforcement, but the Seventh Circuit reversed in Frank I.
- On remand plaintiffs sought relief for persons who cannot obtain qualifying ID with "reasonable effort," and sought to add three additional named plaintiffs and to certify a class; defendants amended Act 23 to accept veterans’ IDs (mooting that claim).
- DMV adopted new procedures (ID Petition Process/CAFU, temporary ID receipts, common-law name-change affidavit, emergency rule 1618) intended to ease obtaining free state IDs for voting, including a temporary photo receipt mailed within six working days.
- Court found those procedures help many but do not guarantee that all voters who reasonably try will obtain qualifying ID: denials, lengthy investigations, DMV errors, identity-document loops (e.g., needing a Social Security card) and transportation/health/work barriers persist.
- Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction requiring an affidavit/declaration option (voter signs under penalty of perjury that they cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort) and for class certification; court granted leave to supplement, certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of eligible Wisconsin voters who cannot with reasonable effort obtain qualifying photo ID, and granted a preliminary injunction to implement the affidavit option by November 8, 2016 (but not for the August 9 primary).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of named plaintiffs to seek affidavit remedy | Named plaintiffs who lack ID or cannot obtain one with reasonable effort have injury and can seek injunction/affidavit relief | Some named plaintiffs obtained ID (moot); others didn’t exhaust new DMV procedures so lack standing | Court found at least some plaintiffs (Frank, Robertson, Switlick, Green) have standing to pursue affidavit remedy |
| Class certification under Rule 23 | Class: all eligible Wisconsin voters who cannot with reasonable effort obtain qualifying photo ID; common injury and uniform injunctive remedy | Class is vague/ascertainability concerns; defendants assert lack of commonality | Court certified class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2); class is administrable for injunctive relief |
| Likelihood of success on merits (Anderson/Burdick undue-burden test) | Act 23 imposes undue burden on those who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort; affidavit remedy would redress and is narrowly tailored | State interests (preventing impersonation fraud, public confidence, orderly administration) justify ID rule and DMV procedures ensure access for those who reasonably try | Court found plaintiffs likely to succeed as-applied to those who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort and that affidavit option appropriately balances interests |
| Scope and implementation of relief (prelim. injunction) | Immediate safety-net is needed; request included mailing individualized notice to at-risk voters | Defendants: implementation logistics, authority over municipal clerks, voter confusion, and timeframe (esp. August primary) | Court ordered affidavit/declaration option implemented for all elections beginning Nov. 8, 2016; denied individualized mailings; declined to require change for August primary due to timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for election regulations; undue-burden analysis)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding photo ID requirement against undue-burden challenge for most voters)
- Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014) (Seventh Circuit reversal of district court injunction in earlier phase)
- Frank v. Walker, 819 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2016) (remanding to allow district court to consider claims for those who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort)
- Frank v. Walker, 17 F. Supp. 3d 837 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (district court’s original findings on burdens and proposed remedies)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement for class certification)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (requiring evidentiary support for state interests when rights are burdened)