Filed Date: May 29, 2015
Closed Date: Jan. 13, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
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.
Summary Authors
(12/1/2023)
Frank v. Walker, Eastern District of Wisconsin (2011)
Common Cause v. Thomsen, Western District of Wisconsin (None)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5613849/parties/one-wisconsin-institute-inc-v-thomsen-mark/
Allred, Colin Zachary (Wisconsin)
Angel, Juan Jose (Wisconsin)
Bauman, Tristia (Wisconsin)
Branch, Aria Christine (Wisconsin)
Callais, Amanda (Wisconsin)
Allred, Colin Zachary (Wisconsin)
Branch, Aria Christine (Wisconsin)
Cherry, Ceridwen B (Wisconsin)
Curtis, Charles Grant (Wisconsin)
Frost, Elisabeth C (Wisconsin)
Jayaraman, Tharuni (Wisconsin)
Martin, Rhett Preston (Wisconsin)
Osaki, Samantha Irene (Wisconsin)
Rosborough, Davin M. (Wisconsin)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5613849/one-wisconsin-institute-inc-v-thomsen-mark/
Last updated Nov. 1, 2025, 11:56 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 29, 2015
Closing Date: Jan. 13, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Advocacy groups and individual voters.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Western District of Wisconsin 3:15-cv-00324
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected Language(s):
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Voting:
Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election