United States v. Town of Thornapple, Wisconsin
24-2931
| 7th Cir. | Jul 14, 2025Background
- The Town of Thornapple, Wisconsin, decided in June 2023 to stop using electronic voting machines in federal elections and instead used only paper ballots for the 2024 primaries.
- The United States sued the Town, alleging failure to provide an accessible voting system for individuals with disabilities, violating section 301 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring Thornapple to provide a HAVA-compliant (accessible) voting system for the November 2024 federal election.
- The Town appealed, arguing that paper ballots are not a "voting system" under HAVA and that the government failed to show irreparable harm.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed only two questions: whether paper ballots are covered by HAVA’s definition of "voting system," and whether the failure to provide accessible voting would cause irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paper ballots constitute a "voting system" under HAVA | HAVA text and structure include paper ballots within "voting system," requiring accessibility | Only systems using mechanical/electronic equipment are "voting systems" under HAVA; paper ballots excluded | Paper ballots are a "voting system" under HAVA |
| Whether government showed likelihood of irreparable harm | Lack of accessible system deprives disabled voters of independent and private voting | No evidence of actual disenfranchised voters; some disabled voters prefer personal assistance | Denial of independent/private voting is irreparable harm, regardless of number of affected voters |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court clarified standards for granting preliminary injunctions)
- Fla. State Conf. of NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153 (Discussed context and purpose of HAVA after 2000 presidential election)
- Colon-Marrero v. Velez, 813 F.3d 1 (Recognized HAVA’s minimum election administration standards)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (Emphasized the importance of the secret ballot in democratic systems)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (Discussed history and significance of secret ballots for election integrity)
- Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Loc. 365 v. City of East Chicago, 56 F.4th 437 (Standard of review for factual findings in appeals)
- League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (Recognized voting rights are irreparably harmed even if only a few are affected)