819 F.3d 384
7th Cir.2016Background
- In 2011 Wisconsin enacted a photographic voter-ID law (2011 Wis. Act 23). A district court enjoined the law as violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; the Seventh Circuit reversed that injunction in 2014.
- After the Supreme Court denied review, plaintiffs renewed challenges in district court asserting (1) Equal Protection violation for excluding veterans’ IDs, and (2) that some eligible voters face insurmountable obstacles to obtaining qualifying photo ID.
- The district court rejected the veterans’ ID claim on the merits; the Wisconsin Legislature amended the statute to accept veterans’ IDs, rendering that portion moot.
- The district court declined to decide plaintiffs’ main claim (that some voters cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort) reasoning the appellate mandate foreclosed re-litigation of those arguments; plaintiffs appealed that refusal.
- Plaintiffs seek relief limited to discrete groups who cannot obtain qualifying photo ID with reasonable effort (name mismatches or missing/defective documents; circular agency refusals; destroyed or non‑existent records). They accept photo‑ID requirements for voters who can obtain ID with reasonable effort.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s unresolved portions and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate the current facts and whether relief is warranted for those who truly cannot obtain ID; the veterans’‑ID ruling was vacated as moot and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain relief for voters who cannot get qualifying photo ID with reasonable effort | Those voters are personally burdened; even one eligible voter denied the franchise merits relief (on Anderson/Burdick grounds) | Plaintiffs forfeited these arguments by not raising them as alternative grounds on appeal or as separate counts | The mandate did not decide this issue; plaintiffs may press it in district court; case remanded for merits and updated fact-finding |
| Whether the appellate mandate bars relitigation of inability‑to‑obtain‑ID claims | Mandate did not decide that persons who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort lack a grievance | Wisconsin contends plaintiffs should have defended the injunction on alternative grounds on appeal (forfeiture) | Forfeiture not compelled; appellees need not present every alternative ground; issue left open for district court |
| Whether complaint pleading form precludes the claim (need for separate count) | Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently pleaded a plausible grievance and sought relief in the alternative under Rule 8/54 | State argued plaintiffs forfeited by not pleading separate counts for each theory | Complaint structure was adequate; Rule 8 does not require one count per theory; not a barrier to relief |
| Mootness of veterans’ ID claim | Plaintiffs’ challenge to exclusion of veterans’ IDs was live when filed | Wisconsin amended statute to accept veterans’ IDs | Claim is moot; district court’s ruling on veterans’ ID vacated and remanded with instruction to dismiss as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding a state voter‑ID law and noting ordinary inconvenience is not a substantial burden)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for vote‑regulation burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applying the Anderson balancing framework to voting restrictions)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur and dismissal as remedy when a case becomes moot on appeal)
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Ludwig, 426 U.S. 479 (1976) (appellee may defend a judgment on any properly preserved ground)
- Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussing discretion not to require appellees to advance every alternative ground for affirmance)