866 F.3d 754
7th Cir.2017Background
- Illinois enacted P.A. 98-1171 (effective June 1, 2015) to expand same-day voter registration and voting; larger counties (pop. ≥100,000) must offer precinct-level election-day registration, smaller counties may opt out unless they have e-pollbooks.
- Twenty counties (about 84% of state population) were required to provide precinct-level election-day registration; other counties had required access at the election authority’s main office or designated municipal locations.
- Patrick Harlan (Republican congressional candidate) and the Crawford County Republican Central Committee sued in August 2016, claiming the two-tier system violated the Equal Protection Clause by disadvantaging voters in smaller counties and aiding Democrats.
- The district court granted a statewide preliminary injunction (Sept. 27, 2016) barring precinct-level election-day registration in all counties; the injunction had no expiration date. The Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction and later heard appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, concluding the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success and noting absence of evidence about who was disadvantaged or how. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm warranting a preliminary injunction | Harlan: precinct-level election-day registration in large counties suppresses relative Republican turnout in small counties and thus irreparably harms his electoral prospects | Election Officials: plaintiffs provided only speculative, unquantified expert opinion and no evidence of concrete, irreparable injury | Held: No irreparable harm shown; expert testimony was speculative and insufficient |
| Appropriate standard of review for the burden on voting rights | Harlan: law imposes severe, discriminatory burden (argued for strict scrutiny) | Election Officials: regulations should be evaluated under Anderson-Burdick balancing; strict scrutiny inappropriate absent severe burden or discriminatory intent | Held: District erred applying strict scrutiny; Anderson-Burdick balancing required and plaintiffs did not meet burden of showing severe burden |
| Likelihood of success on Equal Protection merits | Harlan: the two-tier system causes disparate treatment disadvantaging voters in smaller counties (and partisan effect) | Election Officials: differences are reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulatory choices; no evidence of discriminatory intent or severe burden | Held: No realistic likelihood of success; plaintiffs produced no evidence of discriminatory intent or quantifiable disparate impact |
| Whether injunction should continue after the 2016 election (mootness/urgency) | Harlan: case mooted by passage of the election (plaintiff argued termination) | Election Officials: injunction had no end date; relief should not extend without basis and urgency has abated post-election | Held: Even if initially justified, passage of time removed emergency; injunction cannot stand as ongoing statewide relief and was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) (preliminary-injunction elements explained)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (balancing harms in preliminary-injunction analysis)
- Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 842 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (public-interest factor in injunction decisions)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (movant bears heavy burden for preliminary injunction)
- Lawson Prods., Inc. v. Avnet, Inc., 782 F.2d 1429 (7th Cir. 1986) (abuse-of-discretion standard on appeal of injunction rulings)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson-Burdick balancing and strict-scrutiny only for severe burdens)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (evaluating state interests and burdens in voting regulations)
- Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016) (legal determination of burden on voters reviewed de novo)