186 F. Supp. 3d 958
W.D. Wis.2016Background
- Wisconsin enacted multiple election-law changes (2011 Acts 23, 75, 227; 2013 Act 76) affecting voter ID, registration, absentee/early voting, observer zones, and straight-ticket voting. Act 23 instituted a photo-ID requirement with nine specified acceptable IDs and a free DMV-issued ID program.
- Plaintiffs (two voting/nonprofit organizations and individual voters) allege the laws were enacted to suppress African American, Latino, young, poor, and Democratic-leaning voters and bring claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.
- Defendants (members of Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board, DMV officials, and others) moved for summary judgment on all claims; plaintiffs oppose. The court evaluates justiciability and merits for each claim on summary judgment.
- The court found at least one plaintiff has standing for each category (individuals for voter ID; organizations for registration) and rejected mootness and statutory-standing challenges to the organizational Voting Rights Act claims.
- The court denied summary judgment on most claims because genuine factual disputes exist about burdens, discriminatory effect or intent, and state interests; it granted summary judgment only as to certain rational-basis challenges to the exclusion of out-of-state driver licenses and certain expired DMV receipts, and to technical college IDs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to litigate (Article III and statutory) | Organizations and individuals suffer concrete injuries (diverted resources; ID burdens) and organizations may sue under §2 | Plaintiffs lack concrete injury; orgs cannot be "aggrieved persons" under VRA | At least one plaintiff has standing per issue: individuals for ID; organizations for registration; orgs qualify as §2 plaintiffs (SJ denied on standing) |
| §2 Voting Rights Act challenge to registration/absentee/ID/other changes | Changes impose disparate burdens on minorities and are linked to social/historical discrimination (totality of circumstances) | Laws are neutral, legitimate reforms that impose at most modest burdens | Genuine disputes of material fact exist on disparate effect and causation; summary judgment denied on §2 claims (Count 1) |
| Anderson-Burdick undue burden (First/Fourteenth) | Cumulative and individual rules impose severe burdens (registration proof, reduced absentee access, ID, loss of straight-ticket) | Burdens are modest/administrative; state's interests (fraud prevention, efficiency) justify rules | Court cannot resolve disputes on summary judgment; denied as to Counts 2 and related First Amendment associational claims (Counts 2 and 4) |
| Equal protection / rational-basis challenge to excluding out-of-state and expired IDs | Excluding certain IDs is arbitrary; some excluded IDs (e.g., students’ expired IDs) still identify voters | State had rational grounds (residency/administrative simplicity; temporary receipts) | Exclusion of out-of-state licenses and expired DMV receipts and technical college IDs is rational (SJ granted as to those); exclusion of expired student IDs not shown rational (SJ denied as to expired student IDs) |
| Intentional discrimination (Fourteenth/Fifteenth; Arlington Heights framework) | Legislature acted with purpose to suppress demographic groups (expert Lichtman report; procedural irregularities; knowledge of disparate impacts) | No direct proof of discriminatory intent; legitimate regulatory motives; disparate impact alone insufficient | Plaintiffs produced enough circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment; trial required (Count 5 denied SJ) |
| Twenty-Sixth Amendment age-discrimination claim | Changes disproportionately burden students/young voters; evidence suggests targeted effect | Amendment only bars age qualifications above 18; rules are generally age-neutral | Court applies Arlington Heights-type intent test to Twenty-Sixth claims and finds plaintiffs produced enough evidence to proceed to trial (Count 6 denied SJ) |
Key Cases Cited
- Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.) (Seventh Circuit analysis of Wisconsin voter-ID and §2 and constitutional arguments)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 558 U.S. 181 (2008) (photo ID law burdens described as not severe; Anderson-Burdick framework application)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (flexible standard for reviewing election-law burdens)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for inferring discriminatory intent)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis review presumption and requirements)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (judicial deference in legislative line-drawing under rational-basis review)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing via diverted resources)
- Common Cause Ind. v. Individual Members of the Ind. Election Comm’n, 800 F.3d 913 (7th Cir.) (application of Anderson-Burdick and standing discussion)