Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Early-Voting Restrictions Passed in Wisconsin Lame-Duck Session Blocked by Judge

Newly created restrictions on early voting and other election-related measures that were part of lame-duck legislation signed in December by outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker violate a federal court order issued in 2016 that voided similar restrictions, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

By Ed Treleven

Newly created restrictions on early voting and other election-related measures that were part of lame-duck legislation signed in December by outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker violate a federal court order issued in 2016 that voided similar restrictions, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson, in a five-page ruling, agreed to issue an order enforcing injunctions against time limits for in-person absentee voting, restrictions on the use of student identification cards for voting and time limits on the validity of temporary identification cards issued under a process called the ID Petition Process.

"This is not a close question," Peterson wrote. "The three challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with the injunctions that the court has issued in this case."

During the lame-duck session in December, the GOP-led Legislature approved the measures, and Walker signed them. Soon after, liberal groups Citizen Action of Wisconsin and One Wisconsin Institute went to court to ask Peterson to quash the newly approved restrictions, saying they directly conflicted with orders issued by Peterson in 2016 as he ruled in a case brought by the groups over the state Voter ID law.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has not ruled. Peterson said he retains jurisdiction to enforce his orders while the appeal is pending.

In his order, Peterson wrote that arguments by the state about the dissimilarity between the newly passed law and the limits on in-person absentee voting that Peterson barred were not persuasive.

"If the court accepted defendants' argument, it would mean that a legislative body could evade an injunction simply by reenacting an identical law and giving it a new number," he wrote.

On the student ID issue, Peterson wrote that the state's lawyers argued that the amendments approved by the Legislature had nothing to do with the provisions that Peterson barred in 2016. Again, Peterson disagreed.

Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Institute executive director, applauded the ruling in a statement.

"(Assembly Speaker) Robin Vos and the Republicans have been told by the federal court in no uncertain terms that they are not above the law," Ross said. "The Republican attacks on voting rights were unconstitutional when they were passed, they were unconstitutional when the judge struck them down and they are unconstitutional now."

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers also applauded the ruling, writing on Twitter that he is "glad to see that a federal ct again struck down the GOP's unconstitutional attacks on our right to vote."

"We have to make sure folks have the opportunity to participate in our democracy," he wrote. "That's why I believe we should be making it easier for Wisconsinites to vote, not harder."

Gillian Drummond, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Josh Kaul, said the Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling. She said that Kaul, who was an attorney representing One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action in the case before his election as AG, has recused himself from the case and assigned it to Deputy Attorney General Eric Wilson.

Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, did not respond to a request for comment. In an interview with a WISC-TV reporter Thursday, Vos said of the ruling, "surprise, surprise" that a "liberal judge from Dane County" would strike down the law.

Peterson was appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

The lame-duck law states that in-person absentee voting, or any early voting, can happen no earlier than 14 days before an election, and not after the Sunday before an election.

In his 2016 ruling, Peterson wrote, he barred "state-imposed limits on the time for in-person absentee voting, with the exception of the prohibition applicable to the Monday before election day."

Although the new law expands the early voting window slightly from the law Peterson struck down in 2016, it is still a state-imposed limit, so it violates the injunction, he wrote.

The state also argued that the new law eliminates some restrictions on in-person absentee voting that the court found to be unlawful, such as restrictions on hours or locations for voting.

"This argument ignores the fact that the court concluded that each restriction was independently unlawful and enjoined them separately," Peterson wrote. "Defendants do not point to any language in the court's opinion or injunction in which the court relied on the cumulative effect of the voting restrictions as justification for enjoining them. A party cannot avoid an injunction by complying with parts of it while disregarding others."

While the state admitted that provisions in the new law concerning the use of student IDs and temporary IDs are barred by the 2016 injunction, Peterson wrote, it claimed that it added limits prohibiting the use of expired student IDs or temporary IDs more than 60 days old in anticipation of the appeals court eventually upholding those limits.

Its argument -- that enjoining those provisions would be "redundant and unnecessary" while the appeal of Peterson's 2016 ruling is pending because election officials would obey the court's injunction -- may instead prove confusing for officials, he wrote, who might be unsure whether the provisions are or are not valid.

(c)2019 The Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wis.)

Special Projects
Sponsored Stories
Workplace safety is in the spotlight as government leaders adapt to a prolonged pandemic.
While government employees, students and the general public had to wait in line for hours in the beginning of the pandemic, at-home test kits make it easy to diagnose for the novel coronavirus in less than 30 minutes.
Governments around the nation are working to design the best vaccine policies that keep both their employees and their residents safe. Although the latest data shows a variety of polarizing perspectives, there are clear emerging best practices that leading governments are following to put trust first: creating policies that are flexible and provide a range of options, and being in tune with the needs and sentiments of their employees so that they are able to be dynamic and accommodate the rapidly changing situation.
Service delivery and the individual experience within health and human services (HHS) is often very siloed and fragmented.
In this episode, Marianne Steger explains why health care for Pre-Medicare retirees and active employees just got easier.
Government organizations around the world are experiencing the consequences of plagiarism firsthand. A simple mistake can lead to loss of reputation, loss of trust and even lawsuits. It’s important to avoid plagiarism at all costs, and government organizations are held to a particularly high standard. Fortunately, technological solutions such as iThenticate allow government organizations to avoid instances of text plagiarism in an efficient manner.
Creating meaningful citizen experiences in a post-COVID world requires embracing digital initiatives like secure and ethical data sharing, artificial intelligence and more.
GHD identified four themes critical for municipalities to address to reach net-zero by 2050. Will you be ready?
As more state and local jurisdictions have placed a priority on creating sustainable and resilient communities, many have set strong targets to reduce the energy use and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with commercial and residential buildings.