Seventh Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Wisconsin Voter ID Case
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments today involving Wisconsin's voter ID law. The American Civil Liberties Union 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 three-judge appeals panel consisted of Frank Easterbrook, Diane Sykes, and John Daniel Tinder.
"Protecting the integrity of our elections is essential for a healthy democracy," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, who argued the case. "Forcing voters to navigate unjustified obstacles as they try to cast a ballot is an affront to this fundamental belief. The people deserve better."
More about this case:
Wisconsin passed a voter ID law in 2011. The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of numerous Wisconsin voters, charging the measure violated the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices that have a disparate negative impact on racial minorities. The lawsuit, Frank v. Walker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
At trial last November, the ACLU presented evidence showing that hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters lacked ID; that African-American and Latino voters, who have been subjected to historical and continuing segregation and discrimination in Wisconsin, were far more likely to lack ID and the documents needed to get ID than whites; that there are significant burdens imposed on voters trying to get ID; and that the government lacks strong enough reason to impose these burdens.
Among the plaintiffs is Shirley Brown, an African-American woman in her 70s who was born at home in Louisiana and never had a birth certificate. Brown, who has voted in Wisconsin for decades, was denied an ID because she did not have a birth certificate. DMV rejected a statement from her elementary school attesting to her birth, even though Medicare accepted the statement. Another voter, Eddie Lee Holloway Jr., was unable to get ID because his birth certificate read "Eddie Junior Holloway" instead of "Eddie Lee Holloway Junior."
On April 29, 2014, a federal court struck down the law; the state appealed
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.”