League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walker
851 N.W.2d 302
Wis.2014Background
- Wisconsin 2011 Act 23 requires in-person voters to present one of nine specified forms of photo ID to vote; provisional ballots allowed but counted only if ID is produced within prescribed time.
- Plaintiffs (League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network and its president) brought a facial challenge under Article III of the Wisconsin Constitution, arguing the ID rule (1) adds an elector qualification, (2) exceeds legislative authority under Art. III §2, and (3) is unreasonable.
- Defendants (Governor and Government Accountability Board members) argued the law is a permissible identification method to verify registered electors and fits within registration powers, and that it is a reasonable election regulation serving legitimate state interests (voter confidence, fraud deterrence, modernization).
- The circuit court struck down and enjoined enforcement of the ID provisions; the court of appeals reversed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the court of appeals, holding Act 23 does not add a constitutionally prohibited elector qualification, falls within registration/verification authority under Art. III §2, and is a reasonable regulation. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 23 imposes an additional elector qualification beyond Art. III §1 | Act 23 conditions voting on possession of specified photo ID and thus adds a fourth qualification | ID requirement is a means to verify identity of constitutionally qualified electors, not a new qualification | Not an additional qualification; law is a permissible mode of identifying qualified electors (Cothren principle) |
| Whether Act 23 falls within legislature's Art. III §2 authority (e.g., registration) | Statute exceeds Art. III §2 because it does not simply "provide for registration" but creates a substantive restriction | Photo ID is a mode of verifying that the person at the polls matches the registration list, thus a registration-related regulation | Within Art. III §2 authority as a means of verifying registrants at the polls |
| Whether Act 23 is reasonable as an exercise of police power/regulation of elections | The requirement is unreasonable and would bar qualified voters (facially) from voting | The requirement is reasonable, advances voter confidence, modernization, and fraud deterrence (citing Crawford) | Act 23 is a reasonable regulation that could preserve/promote the right to vote; facial challenge fails under presumption of constitutionality |
| Standard and burden for a facial challenge to voter-ID law | (Implicit) facial challenge must consider burdens; plaintiffs argued facial invalidity | Defendants stressed presumption of constitutionality and that plaintiffs did not present as-applied evidence of burdens | Facial challenge requires showing no circumstances render the statute valid; plaintiffs failed to meet heavy burden beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Cothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. 254 (1859) (legislature may require proof to ascertain whether person offering to vote possesses constitutional qualifications)
- Knowlton v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308 (1856) (invalidating statute that added a residency requirement as an additional qualification)
- Dells v. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 555 (1880) (registry laws valid only as reasonable modes to ascertain constitutional qualifications)
- State ex rel. McGrael v. Phelps, 144 Wis. 1 (1910) (right to vote is guaranteed but subject to reasonable legislative regulation)
- State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71 (1875) (registry requirements constitutional if alternative proof of right remains available)
- Frederick v. Zimmerman, 254 Wis. 600 (1949) (legislature may prescribe how, when, and where ballots are cast, but not destroy/substantially impair the right)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding that voter-ID laws can serve legitimate interests: voter confidence, modernization, fraud deterrence)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenge doctrine: challenger must show no set of circumstances under which statute is valid)