932 F.3d 671
8th Cir.2019Background
- North Dakota requires voters to present a "valid form of identification" at the polls that includes legal name, date of birth, and a current residential street address (RSA); if an ID lacks any item, voters may provide certain supplemental documents or cast a provisional/set‑aside ballot and later cure within six days.
- Plaintiffs (six Turtle Mountain Band members) challenged the RSA, the limited list of acceptable IDs, and the restricted list of supplemental documents as unduly burdening Native American voters who often lack RSAs or the documents needed to obtain state IDs.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction in 2016 against earlier laws, plaintiffs renewed their challenge after the legislature revised the statute (effective Aug. 1, 2017), and the district court again enjoined statewide enforcement of three provisions: the RSA requirement, the limited acceptable tribal/BIA IDs, and the limits on supplemental documents.
- The Secretary appealed, arguing lack of standing (for the RSA claim), the injunction was unnecessary because the Secretary already accepted broader documents, and statewide relief was overbroad. The Eighth Circuit stayed part of the injunction and heard the appeal.
- The Eighth Circuit majority vacated the district court's statewide preliminary injunction, holding plaintiffs failed to show the statute is facially invalid or that a statewide injunction was justified given the record; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge RSA requirement | Norquay and others are injured because obtaining a qualifying ID or supplemental document bearing a current RSA imposes time, expense, and effort. | Plaintiffs already have RSAs and could vote with existing tribal IDs or obtain updated tribal IDs; thus no concrete injury. | At least one plaintiff (Norquay) has Article III standing: the burden of obtaining qualifying ID/supplemental docs suffices as injury. |
| Facial invalidity of RSA requirement | RSA is invidious and disfranchises those (esp. many Native Americans) without street addresses; therefore facially invalid. | The RSA requirement reasonably identifies residence and furthers anti‑fraud interests; facial challenge fails because most voters have qualifying IDs. | Facial challenge likely fails; plaintiffs didn't meet heavy burden to invalidate statute statewide. |
| Necessity of expanding acceptable IDs/supplemental documents statewide | Many Native voters lack state IDs or supplemental documents; statewide relief needed to prevent widespread disenfranchisement. | The Secretary was already interpreting the statute to accept broader tribal/BIA documents; the evidence shows only a small percentage lack IDs, so statewide injunction is unnecessary. | Record insufficient to justify statewide injunction for expanding acceptable IDs or supplemental documents; harms affect a small percentage of voters statewide. |
| Requirement to clarify provisional/set‑aside ballot cure procedure | District court ordered clarification because statute is vague about where/whom to present ID within six days. | Secretary argued existing statutory structure and customary county election administration suffice; no evidence of voter confusion. | No basis shown to enjoin or order clarification; Secretary may nonetheless publicize procedures but injunction not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (framework for preliminary injunction analysis)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (Anderson‑Burdick balancing for voter ID laws)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden rests on plaintiff)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial‑challenge standard)
- Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (fees or wealth requirements violate Equal Protection when unrelated to voter qualifications)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on voting)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (preliminary‑injunction standard in challenges to state statutes)