Seventh Circuit Sets Precedent on Wisconsin Voting Law Reforms

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in the consolidated case of Justin Luft, et al. v. Tony Evers, Governor of Wisconsin, et al., addressed significant challenges to over a dozen amendments to Wisconsin’s election laws enacted since 2011. The plaintiffs, comprising voters and advocacy groups, contested provisions related to voter registration, absentee voting, photo identification requirements, and residency qualifications. The defendants included state officials and the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The core issues revolved around allegations of racial discrimination, violations of the Fifteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, and non-compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit Court upheld several of Wisconsin's election law changes while reversing and remanding others. Key decisions included:

Reversing the district court's findings that changes to in-person absentee voting hours, durational residency requirements, and the prohibition of fax/email absentee ballots violated constitutional provisions or the VRA.
Affirming the invalidity of Wisconsin's student-ID provisions under the Equal Protection Clause.
Remanding issues related to the petition process for voters unable to obtain photo IDs, and the one-location rule for absentee voting, deeming parts of these provisions moot or in need of further examination.

The court emphasized adherence to established precedents, notably rejecting claims of racial discrimination based solely on disparate impact without demonstrable discriminatory intent. Additionally, the court addressed the preemption of state laws by federal regulations concerning student information and clarified the application of the Anderson-Burdick framework in evaluating election law provisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal Supreme Court decisions and prior cases within the Seventh Circuit:

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979): Established the standard that disparate impact alone does not constitute racial discrimination under the Constitution unless there is proof of discriminatory intent.
Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019): Asserted that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the legislature in political questions, such as redistricting and election rules.
Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014) and subsequent iterations: Addressed the constitutionality of Wisconsin's photo ID requirements, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodations for voters unable to obtain qualifying IDs.
ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) and BURDICK v. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992): Formulate the balancing test (Anderson-Burdick framework) for evaluating the constitutionality of election laws by weighing voter burdens against state interests.
WASHINGTON v. DAVIS, 426 U.S. 229 (1976): Defined racial discrimination in constitutional terms as government actions intended to discriminate based on race.
CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, 553 U.S. 181 (2008): Held that the inconvenience of obtaining a photo ID does not constitute a substantial burden on the right to vote.
GRIFFIN v. ROUPAS, 385 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 2004): Emphasized the importance of evaluating election laws within the context of the entire electoral system rather than in isolation.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on several key legal principles:

Disparate Impact vs. Discriminatory Intent: The court reaffirmed that proving a law's disparate impact on a protected class does not suffice for constitutional claims of racial discrimination unless there is evidence of discriminatory intent, aligning with Feeney and WASHINGTON v. DAVIS.
Anderson-Burdick Framework: The court criticized the district court for applying the Anderson-Burdick balancing test inappropriately by evaluating provisions in isolation. Instead, it emphasized assessing the entire electoral system to determine if burdens on voting rights are justified.
Preemption of Federal Law: The requirement for educational institutions to include citizenship information on dormitory lists was invalidated under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), demonstrating federal preemption over state mandates.
Equal Protection and Student IDs: The differential treatment of student IDs lacking proof of current enrollment was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause due to the absence of a rational basis for distinguishing students from other voters.
Reasonable Effort for Photo IDs: While the state argued that the petition process constitutes reasonable accommodation, the court found inconsistencies and inefficiencies in implementation, particularly highlighted by the case of plaintiff Johnny Randle.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for election law and voting rights:

Strengthening Electoral Integrity: By upholding key provisions such as durational residency requirements and restrictions on absentee ballot technologies, the court supports states' abilities to regulate election processes in ways deemed necessary for integrity and reliability.
Limiting Racial Discrimination Claims: The reaffirmation that disparate impact alone does not establish racial discrimination without intent narrows the scope for future litigation challenging election laws on racial grounds.
Clarifying Preemption and Privacy: The decision underscores the supremacy of federal laws like FERPA over state election regulations, setting a precedent for other states considering similar disclosures.
Balancing Voter Access and Security: By rejecting isolated challenges and emphasizing the total electoral system, the court promotes a balanced approach that allows for both voter access and security measures.
Guiding Future Litigation: The comprehensive analysis and adherence to precedent provide a roadmap for how similar cases may be evaluated, potentially reducing the number of frivolous or unfounded claims against election law reforms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Disparate Impact: This refers to policies that affect one group of people more harshly than others, even if there is no intentional discrimination.

Discriminatory Intent: The purposeful intention to treat individuals unfairly based on characteristics like race, gender, etc.

Anderson-Burdick Framework: A legal test used to evaluate whether the burdens imposed by election laws are justified by the state's interests, by assessing the election system as a whole rather than individual provisions.

Preemption: When a higher authority of law supersedes or overrides a lower authority. In this case, federal laws override state regulations.

Equal Protection Clause: Part of the Fourteenth Amendment that requires states to treat individuals equally under the law.

FERPA: Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.

Fixed Election Rules: Laws that set specific procedures and requirements for conducting elections, such as voting hours and ID requirements.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit's decision in Luft v. Evers reinforces the judiciary's role in balancing electoral integrity with voter access, adhering closely to established legal precedents. By rejecting claims of racial discrimination absent clear intent and upholding several key provisions of Wisconsin's election laws, the court affirmed the state's authority to regulate its electoral process within constitutional boundaries. The ruling also highlights the importance of considering the election system holistically, rather than assessing laws in isolation, ensuring that incremental changes do not inadvertently undermine overall voter access. This judgment serves as a significant reference point for future cases involving election law reforms, emphasizing the need for clear legislative intent and adherence to both federal and state legal standards.

Moreover, the affirmation of the invalidity of differentiated treatment of student IDs under the Equal Protection Clause underscores the necessity for consistent and rational bases in election-related regulations. As states continue to navigate the complexities of modern electoral administration, this decision provides guidance on the permissible scope of regulatory changes and the judicial scrutiny such changes warrant. Overall, Luft v. Evers contributes to the evolving landscape of voting rights jurisprudence, balancing the twin imperatives of safeguarding electoral integrity and ensuring broad, equitable access to the voting booth.