Filed Date: April 6, 2015
Closed Date: Oct. 13, 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case alleging that Illinois law violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act by not giving enough time for overseas voters to receive a ballot and cast a vote in the 2015 Illinois special election.
On April 6, 2015, plaintiff, the United States of America, filed suit against the State of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and the Executive Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff sued under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301 et seq., with respect to a special election to fill the vacant office of United States Representative from Illinois’ Eighteenth Congressional District. Under the truncated schedule prescribed by what was state law at the time governing special elections, Illinois could not ensure transmittal of absentee ballots to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters by the 45th day before the scheduled June 8, 2015 special primary election and July 24, 2015 special election, as required by Section 102(a)(8)(A) of UOCAVA. 52 U .S.C. § 20302(a)(8). As a result, UOCAVA voters would not be provided the time specified under federal law to receive, mark, and submit their ballots and have those ballots counted in the upcoming special elections. The Plaintiff sought relief to prevent such violations in future special elections to fill vacancies in the office of United States Representatives in Illinois. The case was assigned to the Honorable John W. Darrah and Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez.
On April 14, 2015, the parties entered into a Consent Decree. Specifically, both parties agreed, by way of consent decree, to adopt the Election Calendar (see annex to Consent Decree) and provide a report to the United States Department of Justice no later than 43 days before the July 7, 2015 and September 10, 2015 special primary elections concerning the transmittal of UOCAVA ballots by local election jurisdictions for that election. It was agreed that the reports should: (i) certify whether absentee ballots were transmitted no later than the 45th day before the election to all qualified UOCAVA voters whose applications for ballots were received and approved by that date; and (ii) indicate, by local election jurisdiction, the number of requests received and the number of UOCAVA absentee ballots transmitted by the 45th day before the election.
As part of the Consent Decree, the Defendants also agreed to issue a press statement for immediate release on the Illinois State Board of Elections website and any other newspaper or news media within Illinois that Defendants determine appropriate to reach UOCAVA voters in the Eighteenth Congressional district, to: (i) summarize the Consent Decree, clarifying the correct election dates; (ii) identify the deadlines relevant to UOCAVA voters; and (iii) provide appropriate contact information for the State Board of Elections for assistance.
On May 31, 2015, Senate Bill 1256, House Floor Amendment No. 1, was passed to amend Section 25-7 of the Election Code to harmonize it with the requirements of the UOCAVA.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Elliot Letts (3/27/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13201725/parties/united-states-v-the-state-of-illinois/
Darrah, John W. (Illinois)
Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)
Ioppolo, Thomas A. (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13201725/united-states-v-the-state-of-illinois/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:05 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 6, 2015
Closing Date: Oct. 13, 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States of America
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Warrant/Order allowing surveillance
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: N/A
Order Duration: 2015 - 2015
Issues
Voting: