Filed Date: Nov. 10, 2015
Closed Date: March 28, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Pub. L. No. 99-410, codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301 to 20311 (“UOCAVA”), and the Illinois statute implementing its requirements, known as the Illinois Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (“MOVE”) law. UOCAVA imposed a range of responsibilities on the states, including Illinois, relating to absentee voting in federal elections by uniformed service members or overseas voters. MOVE likewise addressed absentee voting for Illinois residents who lived overseas. Under UOCAVA, former Illinois residents living in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) were not eligible to vote by absentee ballot because they were included within the statute’s definitions of “State” and the “United States.” Under Illinois MOVE, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands were not included within the definition of the “[t]erritorial limits of the United States” and thus former Illinois residents living in either American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands retained the right to vote by absentee ballot, although former Illinois residents living in Puerto Rico, Guam, and USVI were not afforded this right.
On November 10, 2015, a group of individuals who were former Illinois residents residing in Guam, Puerto Rico, and USVI; Iraq, Afghanistan, and Persian Gulf Veterans of the Pacific; and the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands filed a complaint alleging that UOCAVA and MOVE’s disparate treatment of former Illinois residents currently residing elsewhere violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. Defendants included the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago and its Chairman, Rock Island County Clerk, the United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, the Federal Voting Assistance Program and its Director. The plaintiffs requested (1) a declaratory judgment that UOCAVA and MOVE violated the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C § 1983, (2) a preliminary and permanent order enjoining defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, to accept applications to vote absentee in the next federal election in Illinois from individual plaintiffs, (3) attorneys’ fees and costs to which plaintiffs might be entitled by law; and (4) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. On December 4, 2015, the federal defendants submitted an answer to the complaint, denying the plaintiffs were entitled to the requested reliefs. On December 8, 2015, the Rock Island County Clerk defendant submitted an answer to the complaint, denying the plaintiffs were entitled to the requested reliefs.
On February 11, 2016, the federal defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The federal defendants argued (1) UOCAVA did not prohibit plaintiffs from voting for federal office via absentee ballot and it merely set the bare minimum standard that states had to comply with; (2) UOCAVA met the requirements of the equal protection and due process because (a) the standard of review was rational basis review and (b) disparate treatment between U.S. citizens who moved to a different jurisdiction within the United States and those who moved overseas resulted from Congress’ concern that most American citizens residing outside the United States, who were in the private sector, continued to be excluded from the democratic process of their own country; (3) plaintiffs failed to state a § 1983 claim against the federal defendants because they did not allege that the federal defendants acted under the color of state law vis a vis UOCAVA. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and opposition to federal defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2016, the federal defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and cross-motion for summary judgment.
On August 23, 2016, the court issued an order concluding that (1) plaintiffs had standing to sue because plaintiffs alleged injury were traceable to UOCAVA because (a) UOCAVA includes multiple provisions that require states to extend additional protections to UOCAVA absentee process that they might not extend to other absentee voters as a matter of state law and (b) Illinois’ ability to provide redress did not insulate the federal defendants from liability; (2) rational basis review applied in this case because, as a general proposition, U.S. citizens residing in territories had no constitutional right to vote in federal elections and the plaintiffs did not allege UOCAVA discriminated against them due to their membership in a suspect class; and (3) the challenged portions of UOCAVA satisfied that standard because (a) to support the rationality of a challenged statute, a defendant is not limited to the justifications that the legislature had in mind at the time that it passed the challenged provisions—any rational justification for the laws will overcome an equal protection challenge and (b) the historical relationship between NMI and the U.S. could have supported UOCAVA’s constitutionality under rational basis review. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ requested relief would not result in a universally applicable rule that permits all United States citizens in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the USVI to vote in federal elections, depending on where they previously resided. And it would be rational, at least as the term is understood in the context of rational basis review, to enact a law that does not differentiate between residents living in a particular United States Territory based on whether they could previously vote in a federal election administered by a state.
On September 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for summary judgment, alleging exclusion of plaintiffs’ voting rights violated equal protection principles as a matter of law under any level of scrutiny, and requesting that the court grant summary judgment against the state and federal defendants on the basis that both the federal and state statutes violated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to interstate travel, which was protected by the substantive component of due process. On October 19, 2016, the federal defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On October 28, 2016, the court issued an order concluding (1) MOVE did not violate the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights because this statute’s different treatment of former Illinois residents living in various U.S. territories is rationally related to legitimate state interests, including the synchronization of Illinois MOVE with applicable federal overseas and absentee voting laws such as the UOCAVA’s predecessor statute, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act and (2) MOVE and the UOCAVA did not unconstitutionally burden their right to interstate travel because plaintiffs’ inability to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot in their respective territories stems not from a violation of their right to travel, but from the constitutional status of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the USVI. On October 28, 2016, the court entered a judgement in favor of the defendants.
On March, 20, 2018, the court entered a final judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against defendants and ordering that defendants shall recover costs from plaintiffs. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Sebastian Miao (8/24/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4507702/parties/segovia-v-board-of-election-commissioners-for-the-city-of-chicago/
Gottschall, Joan B. (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4507702/segovia-v-board-of-election-commissioners-for-the-city-of-chicago/
Last updated Jan. 30, 2025, 2:42 p.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 10, 2015
Closing Date: March 28, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals who are former Illinois residents residing in certain overseas U.S. territories that are denied absentee voting rights based on where they live, and organizations that include such individuals as members
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO (Chicago, Rock Island), State
Rock Island County Clerk (Rock Island County, Rock Island), County
Secretary of Defense (District of Columbia, District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting: