ACLU Comment on Petition for Full Appeals Court Review on Wisconsin Voter ID
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
CHICAGO — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition late last night asking that its challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID law be considered by the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge appeals panel reinstated the voter ID law last Friday after hearing oral arguments earlier in the day. The ACLU had presented arguments asking the court to uphold an April 29 federal court ruling striking down the law as unconstitutional and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The following is a statement from Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, on its petition for an en banc hearing:
"The decision allowing this law to take effect this close to the election is a recipe for disaster. Hundreds of absentee ballots have already been cast, and the panel's ruling will create chaos in election administration, resulting in voter confusion and disenfranchisement. The risks of imposing such last-minute disruption are why courts have uniformly cautioned against eleventh-hour changes to election law. We are asking the full appeals court to rehear this case because the voters of Wisconsin deserve every opportunity to cast their ballots free of obstruction."
A copy of the petition is here:
/voting-rights/frank-v-walker-emergency-petition-rehearing-and-suggestion-rehearing-en-banc-panel
The ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and Dechert LLP are co-counsel in this case, Frank v. Walker.
Voting Rights
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Voting Rights
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”