Case: Jones v. Deininger

2:12-cv-00185 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Filed Date: Feb. 23, 2012

Closed Date: May 1, 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged a Wisconsin voter ID law, Act 23, which required voters to present specific forms of identification in order to vote. The plaintiffs argued that the law disproportionately burdened African American and Latino Voters, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). On February 23, 2021, four community organizations dedicated to serving the African American and Latin American communities in Wisconsin, and one individual who could not register to vote due t…

On February 23, 2021, four community organizations dedicated to serving the African American and Latin American communities in Wisconsin, and one individual who could not register to vote due to Wisconsin Act 23, sued the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (“GAB”) for violating the VRA. Passed in 2011, Act 23 required voters to show one of a limited number of specific, government-issued photo identification cards in order to cast a ballot and have it counted in a Wisconsin election. The plaintiffs alleged that Act 23 was a voter suppression law that burdened African American and Latino voters most heavily and abridged their right to vote in violation of the VRA. The defendants, sued in their official capacity, oversee accountability, campaign finance, elections, ethics, and lobbying laws. The case was assigned to Judge Lynn Adelman.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to preclude the defendants from enforcing the voter ID requirements of Act 23 because they violated the VRA. The defendants objected, arguing that the case must be dismissed because plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants alleged that the individual plaintiff’s Ohio driver’s license was a qualifying form of voter identification and that the organization plaintiffs were not injured by Act 23. They also argued that injunctive relief was unnecessary because the state circuit court enjoined the photo ID requirement. Moreover, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs did not establish the requisite criteria for a preliminary injunction, specifically that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated they were injured by Act 23, that they were not likely to suffer irreparable harm because Act 23 was enjoined, and that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the balance of equities was in their favor or that the injunction was in the public interest. The plaintiffs filed a Reply Memorandum in support of their motion, arguing that the organizational plaintiffs had demonstrated both organization and associational standing and that the individual plaintiff had demonstrated individual standing. Moreover, they argued that they did meet criteria for a preliminary injunction because there was evidence that Act 23 imposed a disproportionate and substantial burden on people of color and that the totality of the circumstances confirmed the burden imposed by Act 23 violated the VRA.

On August 30, 2013, the defendants sought to advance the court’s consideration under Civil Local Rule7(h), arguing that, because the only individual plaintiff in the case had since passed away, the organization plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue the claim. The defendants argued that the VRA did not grant organizations a cause of action because they were not “aggrieved persons”. The court denied the motion, finding that the remaining organizational plaintiffs had Article III standing and were “aggrieved persons” under the VRA based on the plain text of the statute and its legislative history. The Senate report on the bill added language saying, “aggrieved person,” was either an individual or an organization representing the interests of injured persons. The court also removed the named individual plaintiff from the case, rendering the case caption League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Deininger.

After the parties went to trial, the plaintiffs filed a Post-Trial Brief in Support of Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 112). They argued that: (1) the four organization plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue and were “aggrieved persons” under the VRA; (2) Act 23 disproportionately impacted voters of color; (3) Act 23 imposed substantial burdens that disproportionately denied and abridged the voting rights of African Americans and Latinos; (4) the “totality of circumstances” analysis confirmed that the burden imposed by Act 23 violated the VRA; (5) Act 23 was the functional equivalent of Jim Crow voter suppression measures outlawed by Section 2; and (6) the plaintiffs met all other requirements for the entry of broad permanent injunctive relief.

The court issued a Decision on April 29, 2014, for both this case and Frank v. Walker, arguing that Act 23 violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Regarding the LULAC case, the court first addressed the defendants’ standing claims, holding that the plaintiffs had Article III standing and statutory standing under the VRA. On the merits, the court found that Act 23 had a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino voters, as the challenges of obtaining a photo ID was more likely to deter them from voting. The court granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the photo ID requirement and enjoined the defendants from requiring voters to present photo IDs to cast a ballot. The court also stated it would hold expedited proceedings should the Wisconsin legislature try to amend the photo ID provisions of Act 23.

The defendants appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 12, 2014, and moved to stay the permanent injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) (Doc. No. 133). The plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Permanent Injunction Pending Appeal, arguing that the lower court ruled appropriately, the scope of the injunction was appropriate, and all other injunction criteria weighed in favor of keeping the injunction in place pending appeal. On August 13, 2014, the court denied the Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal. (Doc. No 142).

On October 15, 2014, the Seventh Circuit granted the plaintiffs-appellees’ Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and Mandate Pending Further Review. The stay would expire if a petition for certiorari was not filed within the allotted time, or if a petition was filed and denied. If a petition was granted, the stay would continue pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petition, and the stay expired, rendering the defendant’s injunction ineffective. The plaintiffs filed an application for a new stay which would reinstate the now-reversed injunction, contending that it was too late to require photo ID (as Act 23 contemplates) for the elections scheduled for April 7, 2015. The defendants agreed not to apply Act 23 to the impending election.

The Seventh Circuit found there was no controversy requiring judicial resolution and denied the application for a renewed stay as moot. The case was closed on May 1, 2014.

	Document
1 2:12-cv-00185	Complaint	Feb. 23, 2012	Feb. 23, 2012 Complaint
20 2:12-cv-00185	Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
43 2:12-cv-00185	Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	June 4, 2012	June 4, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
55 2:12-cv-00185	Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	June 27, 2012	June 27, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
69 2:12-cv-00185	Minutes of Conference	Sept. 27, 2012	Sept. 27, 2012 Transcript
70 2:12-cv-00185	Correspondence	Oct. 8, 2012	Oct. 8, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
77 2:12-cv-00185	Civil L.R. 7(h) Expedited Nondispositive Motion for the Court to Advance Consideration of its Jurisdiction	Aug. 30, 2013	Aug. 30, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
84 2:12-cv-00185	Decision and Order League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin, et al., v Deininger, et al.	Sept. 17, 2013	Sept. 17, 2013 Order/Opinion 2013 WL 5230795
112 2:12-cv-00185	Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief in Support of Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief	Dec. 20, 2013	Dec. 20, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
127 2:12-cv-00185	Decision and Order League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin, et al., v Deininger, et al.	April 29, 2014	April 29, 2014 Order/Opinion 17 F.Supp.3d 837

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Cross Lutheran Church, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin, Bettye Jones, Milwaukee Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Wisconsin League of Young Voters Education Fund. ( Filing Fee PAID $350 receipt number 0757-1440665) (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Defendant Barland, # 2 Summons for Defendant Brennan, # 3 Summons for Defendant Cane, # 4 Summons for Defendant Deininger, # 5 Summons for Defendant Kennedy, # 6 Summons for Defendant Nichol, # 7 Summons for Defendant Robinson, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Curtis, Charles) 1 Summons for Defendant Barland View on PACER 2 Summons for Defendant Brennan View on PACER 3 Summons for Defendant Cane View on PACER 4 Summons for Defendant Deininger View on PACER 5 Summons for Defendant Kennedy View on PACER 6 Summons for Defendant Nichol View on PACER 7 Summons for Defendant Robinson View on PACER 8 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Feb. 23, 2012	Feb. 23, 2012 RECAP
2	DISCLOSURE Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Curtis, Charles)	Feb. 23, 2012	Feb. 23, 2012 PACER
	NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Judge Lynn Adelman ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Callahan to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our web site (jcl)	Feb. 23, 2012	Feb. 23, 2012 PACER
	Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (jcl)	Feb. 23, 2012	Feb. 23, 2012 PACER
3	Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by All Plaintiffs. (Curtis, Charles)	Feb. 28, 2012	Feb. 28, 2012 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by Clayton P Kawski on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Thomas Bellavia, Carrie Benedon, Clayton Kawski (Kawski, Clayton)	Feb. 29, 2012	Feb. 29, 2012 PACER
5	MOTION for Preliminary Pretrial Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Curtis, Charles)	March 2, 2012	March 2, 2012 PACER
6	SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/5/12. Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 3/23/2012 03:00 PM before Judge Lynn Adelman. The court will initiate the call. (cc: all counsel)(dm)	March 5, 2012	March 5, 2012 PACER
7	ANSWER to 1 Complaint,, by All Defendants.(Kawski, Clayton)	March 15, 2012	March 15, 2012 PACER
8	Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by All Defendants. (Kawski, Clayton)	March 15, 2012	March 15, 2012 PACER
	NOTICE by the Court. CHANGE in Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 3/23/2012 03:00 PM. Participants will now call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1-877-336-1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). Once that information is entered participants will be put on hold until we access the call.(cc: all counsel)(dm)	March 15, 2012	March 15, 2012 PACER
9	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Plan by All Parties. (Curtis, Charles)	March 22, 2012	March 22, 2012 PACER
10	STIPULATION Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order by All Parties. (Kawski, Clayton)	March 23, 2012	March 23, 2012 PACER
13	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 3/23/2012; Court will issue Scheduling Order (jcl) (Entered: 03/26/2012)	March 23, 2012	March 23, 2012 PACER
11	PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/24/12. (cc: all counsel)(dm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)	March 24, 2012	March 24, 2012 PACER
12	SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/24/12. Initial disclosures due 4/2/12, Amended Pleadings due by 4/15/2012, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction due 4/16/12, Defendants' brief in opposition due 4/30/12, Plaintiffs' reply due 5/7/12, Plaintiffs Expert Witnesses due by 4/15/2012, Defendants Expert Witnesses due by 5/15/2012, Discovery cutoff 6/1/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 6/18/2012, briefs in opposition due 7/9/12, reply briefs due 7/16/12. (cc: all counsel)(dm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)	March 24, 2012	March 24, 2012 PACER
14	MOTION for Protective Order by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(Bellavia, Thomas)	March 29, 2012	March 29, 2012 PACER
15	CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND AGREED QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FROM THE STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/30/12. (cc: all counsel)(dm) (Entered: 04/02/2012)	March 30, 2012	March 30, 2012 PACER
16	Joint MOTION to Enlarge Revise Scheduling Order And Exceed Page Limits by All Parties. (Kawski, Clayton)	April 11, 2012	April 11, 2012 PACER
17	ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 4/12/12 granting 16 Motion to Enlarge. Plaintiffs' experts and motion for Preliminary Injunction due 4/23/12, Defendants' opposing brief to that motion due 5/11/12, Plaintiffs' reply due 5/18/12. Parties opening briefs not to exceed 45 pages, Plaintiffs' reply not to exceed 25 pages. (cc: all counsel) (dm)	April 12, 2012	April 12, 2012 PACER
18	MOTION to File Amicus Brief Instanter by AFSCME Council 48, AFSCME Take Back America, Common Cause in Wisconsin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Strang, Dean)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
19	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
20	BRIEF in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 19 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 RECAP
21	DECLARATION of Yolanda Santos-Adams. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
22	DECLARATION of Jaime Alvarado In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
23	DECLARATION of Jayme Montgomery Baker In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
24	DECLARATION of Leland Beatty In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
25	DECLARATION of Barry C. Burden In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
26	DECLARATION of Nicole Callazo-Santiago In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
27	DECLARATION of Sheila Cochran In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
28	DECLARATION of Luis Garza In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
29	DECLARATION of Lorene Hutchins In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
30	DECLARATION of Anita Johnson In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
31	DECLARATION of Bettye Jones In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
32	DECLARATION of Kenneth Lumpkin In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
33	DECLARATION of Domingo Mateo In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
34	DECLARATION of Lorraine C. Minnite In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
35	DECLARATION of Eddie Posey In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
36	DECLARATION of Kenneth Wheeler In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER
37	DECLARATION of Charles G. Curtis, Jr. In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. To Curttis Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2. To Curttis Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3. To Curttis Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4. To Curttis Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5. To Curttis Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 6. To Curttis Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 7. To Curttis Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 8. To Curttis Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 9. To Curttis Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 10. To Curttis Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 11. To Curttis Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 12. To Curttis Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 13. To Curttis Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 14. To Curttis Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 15. To Curttis Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 16. To Curttis Declaration, # 17 Exhibit 17. To Curttis Declaration, # 18 Exhibit 18. To Curttis Declaration, # 19 Exhibit 19. To Curttis Declaration, # 20 Exhibit 20. To Curttis Declaration, # 21 Exhibit 21. To Curttis Declaration, # 22 Exhibit 22. To Curttis Declaration, # 23 Exhibit 23. To Curttis Declaration, # 24 Exhibit 24. To Curttis Declaration, # 25 Exhibit 25. To Curttis Declaration, # 26 Exhibit 26. To Curttis Declaration, # 27 Exhibit 27. To Curttis Declaration, # 28 Exhibit 28. To Curttis Declaration, # 29 Exhibit 29. To Curttis Declaration, # 30 Exhibit 30. To Curttis Declaration, # 31 Exhibit 31. To Curttis Declaration, # 32 Exhibit 32. To Curttis Declaration, # 33 Exhibit 33. To Curttis Declaration, # 34 Exhibit 34. To Curttis Declaration, # 35 Exhibit 35. To Curttis Declaration, # 36 Exhibit 36. To Curttis Declaration, # 37 Exhibit 37. To Curttis Declaration, # 38 Exhibit 38. To Curttis Declaration, # 39 Exhibit 39. To Curttis Declaration, # 40 Exhibit 40. To Curttis Declaration, # 41 Exhibit 41. To Curttis Declaration, # 42 Exhibit 42. To Curttis Declaration, # 43 Exhibit 43. To Curttis Declaration, # 44 Exhibit 44. To Curttis Declaration, # 45 Exhibit 45. To Curttis Declaration, # 46 Exhibit 46. To Curttis Declaration, # 47 Exhibit 47. To Curttis Declaration, # 48 Exhibit 48. To Curttis Declaration, # 49 Exhibit 49. To Curttis Declaration, # 50 Exhibit 50. To Curttis Declaration, # 51 Exhibit 51. To Curttis Declaration, # 52 Exhibit 52. To Curttis Declaration, # 53 Exhibit 53. To Curttis Declaration, # 54 Exhibit 54. To Curttis Declaration, # 55 Exhibit 55. To Curttis Declaration, # 56 Exhibit 56. To Curttis Declaration, # 57 Exhibit 57. To Curttis Declaration, # 58 Exhibit 58. To Curttis Declaration, # 59 Exhibit 59. To Curttis Declaration, # 60 Exhibit 60. To Curttis Declaration, # 61 Exhibit 61. To Curttis Declaration, # 62 Exhibit 62. To Curttis Declaration, # 63 Exhibit 63. To Curttis Declaration, # 64 Exhibit 64. To Curttis Declaration, # 65 Exhibit 65. To Curttis Declaration)(Curtis, Charles)	April 23, 2012	April 23, 2012 PACER

Case: Jones v. Deininger

2:12-cv-00185 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details