Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker
769 F.3d 494
7th Cir.2014Background
- Wisconsin enacted 2011 Wis. Act 23 requiring photo ID to vote; it was implemented in Feb 2012 but later enjoined by state courts; the Wisconsin Supreme Court then reversed those injunctions while directing administrators to ease access to underlying documents or waive some documentation burdens.
- A federal district court enjoined Act 23; Wisconsin appealed and the Seventh Circuit panel granted a stay of that injunction shortly before the November 2014 election, allowing the State to enforce the photo‑ID law.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Seventh Circuit stay; the panel denied reconsideration (per curiam) and an equally divided court denied rehearing en banc.
- The panel relied on (1) likelihood of success on the merits informed by prior decisions (notably Crawford and Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings), and (2) the public interest in allowing duly enacted laws to operate pending final adjudication.
- Dissenting judges argued the stay disrupted the pre‑election status quo, would likely disenfranchise a substantial number of registered voters in weeks before the election, and that the record here materially differed from Crawford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay the district court injunction pending appeal | Stay would cause last‑minute chaos and disenfranchise many registered voters lacking acceptable ID | The State likely to succeed on appeal (Crawford/WI Supreme Court) and has public interest in enforcing enacted law | Panel granted stay; reconsideration denied; rehearing en banc equally divided and denied |
| Whether Purcell (last‑minute election orders) bars the stay | Purcell forbids changing election rules close to an election; lifting injunction imposes change and confusion | Distinguishes Purcell: court did not force a change but lifted a federal prohibition so State may follow its law | Panel: Purcell inapposite because stay permits state to enforce its statute rather than compel departure from state rules |
| Whether Act 23 imposes an unconstitutional burden/disenfranchises voters | District court found disproportionate burdens on minorities and ~300,000 registered voters lack qualifying ID; harms are irreparable and implementation so soon will disenfranchise | Many voters had years to obtain IDs; Crawford held time/effort to obtain ID is not a substantial burden; WI has systems and prior implementation experience | Panel concluded Crawford and state court decisions give Wisconsin a strong prospect of success; stay appropriate; dissent disagreed, emphasizing record differences and imminent harm |
| Role of evidentiary record and Crawford precedent | Plaintiffs: Crawford is distinguishable because Wisconsin record contains specific evidence of burdens and disparate impact | State: laws materially comparable; Crawford supports that obtaining ID is not a substantial burden | Panel treated Crawford and recent WI Supreme Court rulings as supporting likelihood of success but acknowledged factual differences; dissent held Crawford inapplicable due to a richer record here |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (plurality) (upholding Indiana photo‑ID law on the record presented)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (per curiam) (cautioning against last‑minute court orders altering election rules)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay factors and standard for emergency stays)
- League of Women Voters v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 302 (Wis. 2014) (WI Supreme Court reversed state injunctions and directed steps to ease access to documentation)
- Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. 2014) (companion WI Supreme Court decision reversing injunction)
- Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (stay practice in same‑sex marriage litigation; court previously stayed district rulings)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (equitable considerations when election machinery is in progress)
- Frank v. Walker, 17 F. Supp. 3d 837 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (district court opinion finding burdens and disparate impact under Wisconsin law)
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (post‑Purcell merits decision upholding Arizona ID law)
- Nader v. Blackwell, 230 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000) (addressing changes to absentee‑ballot procedures after ballots mailed)