Case: United States of America v. State of Illinois

This case was filed on behalf of the United States by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Section ("DOJ") to enforce provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ("UOCAVA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 1973ff to 1973ff-7, as amended by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act ("MOVE Act"), Pub. L. No. 111-84, Sections 575-589 (2009).  These laws protect the voting rights of absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters ("UOCAVA Voters") in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office.  Among other requirements, these laws contain specific timetables by which ballots must be sent to UOCAVA Voters so that the ballots can be received, marked, and submitted in time for them to be counted in a Federal election. The MOVE Act amended UOCAVA to establish new voter registration procedures that states must follow for federal elections, most of which were to be implemented in November 2010.  The USDOJ filed this case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 22, 2010.  Defendants included the State of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections ("SBOE") and Daniel White, the Executive Director of the Illinois SBOE. The case was assigned to Judge William J. Hibbler.

November 2, 2010 was the date of federal elections in 2010.  The MOVE Act required that states transmit validly requested ballots to UOCAVA voters not later than 45 fays before an election for Federal office when the request is received at least 45 days before the election, unless a hardship exemption is obtained pursuant to Section 102(g) of UOCAVA.  Illinois did not seek a hardship exemption.  The 45th day before the November 2, 2010 Federal election was September 18, 2010.  According to the complaint, at least 35 Illinois counties failed to transmit ballots by September 18, 2010 to the UOCAVA Voters in those counties who validly requested ballots by that date.  The complaint further alleged that 29 of those counties transmitted ballots between 2 and 12 days late, between September 20 and September 30, 2010.  Three counties transmitted ballots on October 4, 2010, 16 days late.  Two counties transmitted ballots on October 5, 2010, 17 days late.  One county transmitted ballots on October 8, 2010, 20 days late.  The MOVE Act amendments required states to permit UOCAVA Voters to designate whether they prefer to receive their ballots by mail or electronically, and then transmit the ballots according to the UOCAVA Voters' preferred method.  The complaint alleged that some Illinois counties did not transmit absentee ballots by electronic means to UOCAVA Voters who timely requested electronic delivery; instead, the ballots were sent by postal mail.  Accordingly, some UOCAVA Voters did not receive absentee ballots electronically for the November 2, 2010 election.

To remedy these violations of UOCAVA, the DOJ sought a declaratory judgment that the failure of Illinois election officials to transmit absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days in advance of the November 2, 2010 general election and to transmit absentee ballots electronically when so requested violated Sections 102(a)(8)A), 102(a)(7) and 102(f)(1) of UOCAVA.  The DOJ also sought an injunction requiring the Defendants to take such steps as necessary to ensure that UOCAVA Voters who requested ballots electronically received their ballots by their preferred method of delivery and to take such steps as necessary to ensure that UOCAVA Voters had sufficient opportunity to receive, mark, and submit their ballots in time to have them counted in the November 2, 2010 general election for Federal office. The DOJ's request for injunctive relief also requested that UOCAVA Voters eligible to participate in Illinois' November 2, 2010 general election have a reasonable opportunity to learn of the Court's order; that Defendants provide reports concerning the transmission, receipt, and counting of ballots for the November 2, 2010 general election; and that Defendants take such steps as are necessary to ensure that Illinois conducts future elections in compliance with UOCAVA.

On the same day the DOJ filed its complaint, the DOJ and Defendants filed a Joint Motion Requesting Entry of Consent Decree, along with a proposed Consent Decree.  The Court signed the Consent Decree on October 22, 2010.  The Consent Decree contains numerous, detailed provisions requiring Defendants to take steps to ensure that UOCAVA Voters would have sufficient opportunity to receive, mark and submit their absentee ballots in time to have them counted in the November 2, 2010 election.  This included extending the deadline for receipt of ballots from UOCAVA Voters in certain Illinois counties.  Defendants were also required to provide certifications demonstrating how they complied with the Court's order.  All Illinois election authorities were required to certify that they transmitted ballots to all qualified UOCAVA Voters in accordance with UOCAVA's terms.  Defendants were also ordered to undertake an investigation to determine the cause of the violation of UOCAVA and take all administrative or other actions, including recommending legislation, needed to prevent future UOCAVA violations.  The Court ordered the parties to confer on the status of their efforts and to provide a status report to the DOJ by March 15, 2011.  The Court retained jurisdiction over the case through December 31, 2012 to enter such further relief as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of the Consent Decree and to enter such relief as may be necessary to abate any UOCAVA violations in the future.  

The Illinois Republican Party sought to intervene in the case on October 22, 2010.  The Illinois Republican Party argued that the Consent Decree proposed by the DOJ and the Defendants was inadequate to protect the rights of the UOCAVA Voters whose ballots were not transmitted by the September 18, 2010 deadline. In a complaint and motion for injunctive relief attached to its Petition to Intervene, the Illinois Republican Party asked the Court to grant UOCAVA Voters the full 59 day opportunity to receive, mark, return and have their ballots counted, which they would have had if Illinois' election authorities had followed UOCAVA procedures initially.  Alternatively, the Illinois Republican Party requested the Court to recognize the November 19, 2010 receipt of ballot deadline set by the permanent injunction order in Judge v. Quinn, No. 09-cv-1231 (N.D. Ill).   The DOJ and Defendants opposed the Petition to Intervene, and the Court denied the Petition without explanation on October 27, 2010.

On January 19, 2012, the DOJ and Defendants jointly asked the Court to supplement the 2010 Consent Decree to reduce the likelihood of future UOCAVA violations.  The Court entered a Supplemental Consent Decree on January 26, 2012.  The Supplemental Consent Decree required that several additional procedures be adopted, including surveying each Illinois Election Authority beginning the 55th day prior to each Federal election to assess whether each Election Authority had a sufficient number of absentee ballots ahead of the 45-day mailing deadline; whether each Election Authority had the technical capacity to transmit all requested ballots by the UOCAVA Voters' requested method of transmission; and whether any Election Authority anticipated any circumstances that would prevent it from transmitting all requested ballots to UOCAVA Voters by the requested method of transmission and by the appropriate deadline.  Based on the results of this survey, Defendants would determine whether providing additional support to any Election Authority will ensure that it meets UOCAVA's deadlines.  Defendants were required to provide additional support where reasonable.  Defendants were also required to obtain certifications demonstrating the procedures that the Election Authorities followed to meet UOCAVA's requirements.  Prior to the March 20, 2012 Federal primary election, Defendants were also required to conduct a training program for at least one election official who is responsible for UOCAVA ballot transmission from each Election Authority on the requirements of UOCAVA, and the need to send absentee ballots by the requested method of transmission to UOCAVA Voters in a timely manner. The Supplemental Consent Decree remained in effect until December 31, 2012 and the case was closed.