Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker, 768 F.3d 744

Wisconsin enacted Act 23 (2011) requiring photo ID for in-person and absentee voting; district court enjoined the law as unconstitutional and in violation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act; Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction and reversed.
The Seventh Circuit analyzed Act 23 in light of Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008), which upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law.
District court findings relied on (1) estimate that ~300,000 registered Wisconsin voters lack an acceptable photo ID, (2) evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare in Wisconsin, and (3) disparities showing whites more likely than blacks/Latinos to possess qualifying ID or required documents.
The Seventh Circuit found many relevant factual gaps: the district court did not find many people actually unable to obtain IDs after trying; no evidence of turnout declines from Wisconsin’s Feb. 2012 primary or from other photo‑ID states was introduced; and state changes and rules (Milwaukee Branch of NAACP direction and administrative emergency rule) ameliorate documentation burdens.
The court held that Crawford’s reasoning controls: Wisconsin’s burdens are not materially greater than Indiana’s, legislative findings about the benefits of photo ID (deterrence, record accuracy, public confidence) are legislative facts entitled to deference, and plaintiffs failed to show a §2 vote‑denial violation under the totality-of-circumstances standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of photo‑ID requirement	Act 23 imposes a substantial burden on voting by denying access to those without ID	Burden is modest and comparable to Indiana; Crawford controls	Reversed district court; Act 23 constitutional under Crawford
Relevance of Crawford	Crawford not controlling because Wisconsin differs and more voters lack ID	Crawford established legislative facts and standard; similarities control	Crawford controls; differences not material here
Evidence of discriminatory effect under §2	Disparate impact: minorities less likely to have IDs/documents → vote denial	Law provides equal opportunity to obtain ID; disparities reflect socioeconomic factors, not state action	§2 claim fails: plaintiffs did not show denial of opportunity under totality of circumstances
Remedy (scope of injunction)	Broad permanent injunction necessary to prevent disenfranchisement	Injunction should be narrow or state allowed to fix access problems	Even if violation shown, the district court’s unconditional permanent injunction was overbroad; but court reversed on merits so no remedial order affirmed

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding Indiana photo‑ID law and articulating balancing approach between burdens and state interests)
Gingles v. Thornburg, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (set out multi‑factor framework for §2 vote‑dilution claims)
Farrakhan v. Gregoire, 623 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding felon‑disfranchisement statutes do not violate §2 despite disparate racial impacts)
Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (same: §2 does not automatically condemn voter‑qualification laws with disparate effects)
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (upholding Arizona voter‑ID regime under §2)
Armour v. Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) (courts should accept legislative facts and prior controlling Supreme Court determinations)