Case: One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol

3:15-cv-00324 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Filed Date: May 29, 2015

Closed Date: Jan. 13, 2023

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a lawsuit regarding a set of changes in Wisconsin's voter registration and election laws. On May 29, 2015, the advocacy groups of One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, as well as individual voters, filed suit in the United States Western District Court of Wisconsin, represented by Perkins Coie. The defendants in this case are members of the Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (“GAB”), a state governmental entity that oversees Wisconsin’s campaig…

This is a lawsuit regarding a set of changes in Wisconsin's voter registration and election laws.

On May 29, 2015, the advocacy groups of One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, as well as individual voters, filed suit in the United States Western District Court of Wisconsin, represented by Perkins Coie. The defendants in this case are members of the Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (“GAB”), a state governmental entity that oversees Wisconsin’s campaign finance, election, ethics, and lobbying laws, the secretary of Wisconsin Department of Transportation (“DOT”), and the administrator of Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). The case was presided over by District Judge James D. Peterson.

The plaintiffs challenged a set of Wisconsin laws. Beginning in 2011, the newly elected legislature began changing Wisconsin's election system. In particular, the plaintiffs challenged provisions from four separate pieces of legislation: 2011 Wis. Act 23, 2011 Wis. Act 75, 2011 Wis. Act 227, and 2013 Wis. Act 76. The provisions that plaintiffs challenge fall into four categories: (1) registering to vote; (2) absentee voting; (3) voter ID; and (4) miscellaneous voting procedures.

The plaintiffs argued that Wisconsin’s new laws of 2011 were designed to suppress the votes of African Americans, Latinos, the young, the poor, and voters inclined to vote for Democrats, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and various provisions of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and/or the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. The plaintiffs therefore sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

As mentioned above, the first category of provisions challenged by the plaintiffs dealt with registering to vote. Under Wisconsin’s former law, proof of residence was necessary only when registering within 20 days of an election. But the new 2011 laws required all voters to provide proof of residence when registering no matter when they register. Voters could therefore no longer use “corroboration” (i.e., one voter vouches for another voter's residence) as proof of residence.

Plaintiffs also challenged the changed laws surrounding the registration locations and personnel. The new 2011 laws narrowed the use of special registration deputies by eliminating statewide deputies, meaning that individuals now needed to apply to the municipal clerk or election board to serve as a special registration deputy for that municipality. The new laws also repealed a statute that required public high schools to serve as registration locations for their enrolled students and staff members. Finally, the new law prohibited municipalities from requiring landlords to provide any election information that federal law did not require them to provide.

The final change to registration that plaintiffs challenged involved the length of time that a voter would have to reside in his or her ward before voting in that ward. The new laws increased the durational residency requirement from 10 days to 28 days. Thus, voters who moved from one ward to another within 28 days of an election had to vote in their old wards, either in-person or absentee. Voters who moved into Wisconsin from out-of-state within 28 days of an election could not vote for any office other than President and Vice President.

The second category of provisions challenged by plaintiffs dealt with the changes in absentee voting in Wisconsin, especially with regard to the availability of and procedures for absentee voting. Before 2011, Wisconsin did not limit the days or times that municipalities could offer in-person absentee voting. With the changes, in-person absentee voting could only occur during the two weeks immediately preceding an election. Specifically, in-person absentee voters had to vote on weekdays, excluding legal holidays, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Further, in-person absentee voting had to occur at the municipal clerk's office or at an alternate site that the municipality requested, but not both. The state legislature also changed the procedures for requesting and receiving absentee ballots. Although voters could apply for absentee ballots in person, by mail, by email, or by fax, municipal clerks now distributed ballots to voters only by mail or in person. Finally, 2011 Wisconsin prohibited clerks from returning an absentee ballot to a voter unless the ballot was spoiled or damaged or had an improperly completed certification. This measure arguably prevented clerks from returning ballots to absentee voters to correct mistakes like overvoting or improper marks.

The third category of provisions challenged by plaintiffs dealt with voter ID requirements. With some exceptions, the new law now required all voters to show proof of identification to vote. For voters who lacked acceptable ID, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation provided free ID cards. These cards normally cost $18, but a person could receive one for free by meeting the other requirements for obtaining an ID, being at least 18 years old by the date of the next election and requesting that the Department of Transportation waive the fee so that the person could use the ID card to vote. There were nine qualifying forms of ID: (1) a Wisconsin driver license; (2) a Wisconsin ID card; (3) a U.S. military ID card; (4) a U.S. passport; (5) a certificate of U.S. nationalization, issued within two years of the election; (6) an unexpired Wisconsin driver license fee receipt; (7) an unexpired Wisconsin ID card receipt; (8) an ID card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe; and (9) an unexpired college or university ID card. A voter who did not have a valid ID on election day could cast a provisional ballot and present acceptable ID at the polling place later that day or at the municipal clerk's office the Friday after the election.

Finally, the last category of provisions challenged by plaintiffs dealt with two new and allegedly miscellaneous voting procedures. The first change dealt with observers at polling places. Before 2013, the GAB required observers to be between 6 and 12 feet from the tables at which voters announced their names and addresses or registered to vote. The legislature changed this “buffer zone” in Act 117, requiring election officials to designate an area between 3 and 8 feet away from the tables. According to the District Court, none of the named defendants were responsible for designating areas at specific polling places; that responsibility belonged to the chief election inspector or municipal clerk. The second change challenged was the elimination of “straight-ticket” voting. Except for military and overseas voters, Wisconsin ballots no longer contained a straight-ticket option that lets a voter select all candidates of a particular political party.

This lawsuit was not the first time that Wisconsin’s voter ID law was challenged. In case No.11-cv-1128-jdp—a case that this lawsuit was consolidated with on August 20, 2020— the Seventh Circuit held that Act 23 did not violate either § 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.

Aware that this precedent foreclosed their challenge to the voter ID requirements, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2015, to preserve the issue on appeal.

The plaintiffs then expanded the scope of their challenge, alleging that the DOT abused its discretion in providing free IDs. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 25, 2016, alleging again that Wisconsin's voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

Based on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, on May 12, 2016, the court ruled on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on January 11, 2015 (186 F.Supp.3d 958). The defendants lost on all but Count 3 of the second amended complaint regarding “disparate treatment of voters without a rational basis in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The court granted Court 3 in part, finding that Wisconsin's exclusion of out-of-state driver licenses, expired driver license receipts, and expired ID card receipts as acceptable forms of voter ID did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the legislature had a rational basis for these measures. The court, however, denied the defendants’ motion as it pertained to Wisconsin's exclusion of expired student IDs as an acceptable form of voter ID.

On July 29, 2016, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the challenged provisions relating to in-person absentee voting, the court found that Wisconsin’s statutes establishing a one-location rule violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It also found that limiting the days and time for in-person absentee voting violated the Fifteenth Amendment. For the challenged provisions relating to registering to vote, the court found that requiring to increase the durational residency requirement from 10 days to 28 days violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For the challenged provisions relating to election procedures, the court found that prohibiting municipal clerks from emailing or faxing absentee ballots to voters violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For the challenged provisions relating to voter ID, the statutes and administrative rules that created and governed the IDPP that voters could use to obtain free IDs for purposes of voting were deemed to have violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

Because the plaintiffs made requisite showings that several of the challenged provisions violated the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, the court permanently enjoined defendants from enforcing the now-declared invalid provisions. In particular, the court required that the IDPP be reformed to satisfy two criteria. First, Wisconsin now cannot make it unreasonably difficult for voters to obtain a free ID. Once a petitioner has submitted materials sufficient to initiate the IDPP, the DMV will now have to promptly issue a credential valid for voting, unless readily available information shows that the petitioner is not a qualified elector entitled to such a credential. Second, the state would not have to inform the general public that those who enter the IDPP would promptly receive a credential valid for voting, unless readily available information shows that the petitioner is not a qualified elector entitled to such a credential. The case closed on January 13, 2023.

	Document
1 3:15-cv-00324	Complaint	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 Complaint
19 3:15-cv-00324	Amended Complaint	June 22, 2015	June 22, 2015 Complaint
22 3:15-cv-00324	Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss	July 22, 2015	July 22, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
20 3:15-cv-00324	Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint	July 22, 2015	July 22, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
28 3:15-cv-00324	Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss	Aug. 12, 2015	Aug. 12, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
31 3:15-cv-00324	Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss	Aug. 21, 2015	Aug. 21, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
66 3:15-cv-00324	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss One Wisconsin Institute, Et Al V. Nichol, Et Al	Dec. 17, 2015	Dec. 17, 2015 Order/Opinion
77 3:15-cv-00324	Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment	Jan. 11, 2016	Jan. 11, 2016 Pleading / Motion / Brief
141 3:15-cv-00324	Second Amended Complaint One Wisconsin Institute, Et Al V. Nichol, Et Al	March 25, 2016	March 25, 2016 Complaint
185 3:15-cv-00324	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment	May 12, 2016	May 12, 2016 Order/Opinion 186 F.Supp.3d 958

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0758-1564838.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Judge Gerald C. Nichol, # 3 Summons Judge Elsa Lamelas, # 4 Summons Judge Thomas Barland, # 5 Summons Judge Harold V. Froehlich, # 6 Summons Judge Timothy Vocke, # 7 Summons Judge John Franke, # 8 Summons Kevin J. Kennedy, # 9 Summons Michael Haas) (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 05/29/2015) 1 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Summons Judge Gerald C. Nichol View on PACER 3 Summons Judge Elsa Lamelas View on PACER 4 Summons Judge Thomas Barland View on PACER 5 Summons Judge Harold V. Froehlich View on PACER 6 Summons Judge Timothy Vocke View on PACER 7 Summons Judge John Franke View on PACER 8 Summons Kevin J. Kennedy View on PACER 9 Summons Michael Haas View on PACER	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 RECAP
	Standard Attachments Sent	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 PACER
	Add Judge for Shell Case Opening	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 PACER
	Case randomly assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (jls)	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 PACER
	Standard attachments for Judge James D. Peterson required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: NORTC, Corporate Disclosure Statement. (jls)	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 PACER
2	Summons Issued as to Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Attachments: # 1 Judge Elsa Lamelas Summons, # 2 Judge Thomas Barland Summons, # 3 Judge Harold V. Froehlich Summons, # 4 Judge Timothy Vocke Summons, # 5 Judge John Franke Summons, # 6 Kevin J. Kennedy Summons, # 7 Michael Haas Summons) (jls) (Entered: 05/29/2015)	May 29, 2015	May 29, 2015 PACER
3	Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiffs Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Renee M. Gagner, Anita Johnson, Cody R. Nelson, One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Jennifer S. Tasse, Scott T. Trindl, Michael R. Wilder. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/02/2015)	June 2, 2015	June 2, 2015 PACER
4	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Gerald C. Nichol served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
5	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Elsa Lamelas served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
6	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Thomas Barland served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
7	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Harold V. Froehlich served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
8	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Timothy Vocke served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
9	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. John Franke served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
10	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Kevin J. Kennedy served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
11	Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Michael Haas served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
12	Notice of Appearance filed by Clayton P. Kawski for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Kawski, Clayton) (Entered: 06/08/2015)	June 8, 2015	June 8, 2015 PACER
13	Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint through and including July 22, 2015 by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke, Plaintiffs Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Renee M. Gagner, Anita Johnson, Cody R. Nelson, One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Jennifer S. Tasse, Scott T. Trindl, Michael R. Wilder. (Kawski, Clayton) Modified on 6/9/2015: Corrected the docketing event. (lak) (Entered: 06/08/2015)	June 8, 2015	June 8, 2015 PACER
14	TEXT ONLY ORDER The parties' stipulation to extend time to answer or otherwise respond is ACCEPTED and ENTERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/9/15. (jls) (Entered: 06/09/2015)	June 9, 2015	June 9, 2015 PACER
	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer	June 9, 2015	June 9, 2015 PACER
15	Notice of Appearance filed by Brian P. Keenan for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 06/09/2015)	June 9, 2015	June 9, 2015 PACER
16	Notice of Appearance filed by Sean Michael Murphy for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Murphy, Sean) (Entered: 06/09/2015)	June 9, 2015	June 9, 2015 PACER
17	Notice of Appearance filed by Winn Switzer Collins for Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Collins, Winn) (Entered: 06/09/2015)	June 9, 2015	June 9, 2015 PACER
18	Notice of Appearance filed by Joseph Wenzinger for Plaintiffs Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Renee M. Gagner, Anita Johnson, Cody R. Nelson, One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Jennifer S. Tasse, Scott T. Trindl, Michael R. Wilder. (Wenzinger, Joseph) (Entered: 06/15/2015)	June 15, 2015	June 15, 2015 PACER
19	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 06/22/2015)	June 22, 2015	June 22, 2015 PACER
	Set Telephonic Preliminary Pretrial Conference: Telephonic Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 8/11/2015 at 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. [Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conference attached] (jls)	June 23, 2015	June 23, 2015 PACER
	Set Pretrial or Status Conference	June 23, 2015	June 23, 2015 PACER
20	ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 07/22/2015)	July 22, 2015	July 22, 2015 PACER
21	MOTION TO DISMISS by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. Brief in Opposition due 8/12/2015. Brief in Reply due 8/24/2015. (Keenan, Brian) Modified on 7/23/2015. (lak) (Entered: 07/22/2015)	July 22, 2015	July 22, 2015 PACER
22	Brief in Support of 21 Motion to Dismiss, by Defendants Thomas Barland, John Franke, Harold V. Froehlich, Michael Haas, Kevin J. Kennedy, Elsa Lamelas, Gerald C. Nichol, Timothy Vocke. (Keenan, Brian) (Entered: 07/22/2015)	July 22, 2015	July 22, 2015 PACER
23	Motion to Admit Joseph Vanderhulst Pro Hac Vice. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 50 receipt number 0758-1605106.) by Amicus Public Interest Legal Foundation. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Vanderhulst, Joseph) (Entered: 07/30/2015)	July 30, 2015	July 30, 2015 PACER
24	Motion for Leave to Appear to Participate as Amicus Curiae by Amicus Public Interest Legal Foundation. Response due 8/6/2015. (Vanderhulst, Joseph) Modified on 7/31/2015: Corporate Disclosure Statement to be filed as a separate docket entry. (lak) (Entered: 07/30/2015)	July 30, 2015	July 30, 2015 PACER
25	TEXT ONLY ORDER ORDER granting 23 Motion to Admit Joseph Vanderhulst Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 7/31/2015. (lak) (Entered: 07/31/2015)	July 31, 2015	July 31, 2015 PACER
	Order on Motion to Admit Pro Hac Vice	July 31, 2015	July 31, 2015 PACER
26	Corporate Disclosure Statement by Amicus Public Interest Legal Foundation. (Vanderhulst, Joseph) (Entered: 07/31/2015)	July 31, 2015	July 31, 2015 PACER
27	Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Report by Plaintiffs Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Renee M. Gagner, Anita Johnson, Cody R. Nelson, One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Jennifer S. Tasse, Scott T. Trindl, Michael R. Wilder. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 08/06/2015)	Aug. 6, 2015	Aug. 6, 2015 PACER
	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker: Telephone Preliminary Pretrial Conference held on 8/11/2015 [:34] (cak)	Aug. 11, 2015	Aug. 11, 2015 PACER
	Telephone Preliminary Pretrial Conference	Aug. 11, 2015	Aug. 11, 2015 PACER
28	Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, Inc., Renee M. Gagner, Anita Johnson, Cody R. Nelson, One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., Jennifer S. Tasse, Scott T. Trindl, Michael R. Wilder re: 21 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Gerald C. Nichol, Harold V. Froehlich, Elsa Lamelas, Thomas Barland, Michael Haas, Timothy Vocke, John Franke, Kevin J. Kennedy. (Kaul, Joshua) (Entered: 08/12/2015)	Aug. 12, 2015	Aug. 12, 2015 PACER
29	Pretrial Conference Order - Dispositive Motions due 12/21/2015. Final Pretrial Submissions due 4/18/2016. Court Trial set for 5/16/2016 at 09:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/12/2015. (jls) (Entered: 08/13/2015)	Aug. 13, 2015	Aug. 13, 2015 PACER
30	ORDER denying 24 Motion for Leave to Appear to Participate as Amicus Curiae. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/17/2015. (jls)	Aug. 17, 2015	Aug. 17, 2015 RECAP

Case: One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol

3:15-cv-00324 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details