905 F.3d 553
8th Cir.2018Background
- North Dakota law (effective Aug. 1, 2017) requires voters to present a valid ID showing legal name, date of birth, and current residential street address; certain supplemental documents may be accepted where ID lacks information.
- The district court enjoined enforcement of the requirement that IDs show a current residential street address and ordered the Secretary to accept IDs or supplemental documents showing a current mailing address (e.g., P.O. Box) statewide; it also ordered acceptance of certain tribal documents.
- Six Native American plaintiffs challenged the 2017 statute on Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act grounds; all six have residential street addresses, but plaintiffs allege burdens in obtaining qualifying ID or supplemental documents.
- The Secretary appealed and moved to stay the portion of the injunction allowing mailing addresses in lieu of residential street addresses pending appeal.
- The Eighth Circuit (lead opinion) granted a stay limited to the mailing-address relief, concluding the Secretary likely will succeed on appeal, would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, and that timing permitted a stay before November 2018; the court left the remainder of the district-court injunction in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to bring facial challenge | Plaintiffs: requirement to obtain/produce ID (or supplemental docs) causes an injury-in-fact even if they currently have street addresses | Secretary: plaintiffs who possess residential addresses were not injured by the statute and so lack standing to facially challenge it | At least one plaintiff (Norquay) has standing based on burden to obtain ID reflecting current residence; court did not adopt broader standing theory urged by dissent |
| Validity/scope of injunction (facial vs as-applied) | Plaintiffs: street-address requirement effectively disenfranchises many Native Americans lacking street addresses; statewide mailing-address relief is necessary | Secretary: statewide injunction is overbroad; harms majority of voters who have street addresses; remedy should be narrower/as-applied | Court: facial statewide injunction unlikely to survive; plaintiffs bear heavy burden for facial relief; stay granted as to mailing-address relief pending appeal |
| Stay factors (likelihood of success; irreparable harm) | Plaintiffs: harms to enfranchisement and voter access outweigh State interests; administrative disruption favors maintaining injunction | Secretary: likely to succeed on appeal; accepting mailing-address IDs risks wrong-precinct voting, dilution, and fraud; irreparable harm to State | Court: Secretary showed likelihood of success and irreparable harm from wrong-precinct voting and potential fraud; stay appropriate pending appeal |
| Alternative remedies (affidavit/vouching/fail-safe) | Plaintiffs: reinstate affidavit/vouching options to protect voters who cannot obtain ID | Secretary: legislature rejected self-certification as unreliable; district court previously dissolved older injunction changing remedies | Court: decline to reinstate broad affidavit remedy; noted legislature provided set-aside ballot with six-day cure; stay does not affect other injunctive relief allowing some tribal documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (stay factors for injunctions pending appeal)
- Brady v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011) (likelihood of success and irreparable harm required for stay)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (facial challenges to voter-ID laws disfavored; as-applied relief may be appropriate)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial invalidation of neutral election regulations disfavored)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay standard and burden on movant)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (considerations about changing election rules close to election)
- Frank v. Walker, 819 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding narrower as-applied relief in voter-ID context)
- Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (fees and wealth-based barriers to voting unconstitutional)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (fundamental nature of the right to vote)