947 F.3d 1056
7th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (credentialed election monitors and a voter) observed the statutorily required 5% post-election audit of Chicago’s DRE voting machines after the 2016 Illinois primary and alleged pervasive audit misconduct (preprinted machine totals on tally sheets, pencil marks/erasures, stopping counts early, obscuring monitors’ views).
- Illinois law requires a random 5% audit comparing hand counts of the machines’ permanent paper records to electronic totals and mandates a written report if discrepancies persist (10 Ill. Comp. Stat. §24C-15), and incorporates §22-9.1 which expressly bars using such test results to amend or change certified election returns.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging deprivation of the right to vote, freedom of association, and right to petition; they also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Board moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed the constitutional claims (and related equitable relief) with prejudice, reasoning that Illinois law precludes the 5% audit results from affecting election outcomes; thus alleged audit misconduct could not have deprived plaintiffs of the right to vote.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: because the statutes prevent post-election audit results from altering certified returns, plaintiffs’ federal voting claim failed as a matter of law; the other constitutional claims were waived or insufficient; no federal jurisdiction supported declaratory/injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged audit misconduct violated the right to vote under §1983 | Audit fraud could have affected vote counts and thus deprived plaintiffs of the right to have their votes counted | Illinois statutes prevent 5% audit results from altering or changing certified precinct returns or election proclamations, so audit misconduct could not affect votes | Dismissed: statutory scheme forecloses claim; plaintiffs cannot show votes were affected |
| Freedom of association | Board’s audit conduct and exclusion at the proclamation meeting interfered with plaintiffs’ associational rights | Plaintiffs failed to allege whom they were prevented from associating with or any interference; arguments undeveloped | Waived/insufficient: plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead an associational violation |
| Right to petition the government | Plaintiffs were prevented from publicly commenting at the proclamation meeting | Plaintiffs had petitioned in writing and voiced objections earlier; not barred from petitioning; also argument underdeveloped | Waived/insufficient: no plausible denial of the right to petition |
| Declaratory and injunctive relief / jurisdiction to provide equitable relief | State remedies inadequate; federal relief required to prevent future audit violations | With federal constitutional claims dismissed, no Article III case or controversy; future harm speculative so injunctive standing lacking | Dismissed: no jurisdiction to grant declaratory or injunctive relief; equitable claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard and pleading requirements)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (right to vote protections)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (fundamental nature of the right to vote)
- United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) (right to have one’s vote counted)
- Kasper v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987) (violations of state election law do not automatically create a federal constitutional violation)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (case-or-controversy requirement for declaratory judgments)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing for injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (scope of the right to petition the government)