in the united states court of appeals for the seventh...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit _____________________________________
RUTHELLE FRANK, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
SCOTT WALKER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________________________________________________________
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN
CITIZENS OF WISCONSIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DAVID G. DEININGER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Nos. 2:11-CV-01128-LA & 2:12-CV-00185-LA.
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, Judge Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY
JUDGMENT AND MANDATE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully move for an emergency stay of
this Court’s October 6, 2014 judgment (ECF No. 75), and the resulting mandate,
pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for rehearing en banc and, if
necessary, a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
2
First, there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs and other Wisconsin voters
“will suffer irreparable injury” in the upcoming November 4 general election if a
stay is not issued. United States ex rel. Chandler v. Cook Cty., 282 F.3d 448 (7th Cir.
2002) (Ripple, J., in chambers). Act 23 “was designed to have a rollout period of 8
months before a primary and 16 months before a general election—not mere
weeks.” ECF No. 73 at 12. The fact that a legislature has provided a lengthy period
for voter education and poll-worker training before new voter ID requirements take
effect “strongly suggest[s] that these steps cannot be adequately completed” in a
truncated time, especially just weeks before a major election. South Carolina v.
United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 30, 49 (D.S.C. 2012).
The State’s eleventh-hour attempt to implement the law’s photo ID
requirement will cause chaos at the polls, confusion among voters and poll workers,
and widespread disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court has admonished lower
courts not to order last-minute changes to voting rules, since such changes “can
themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from
the polls,” a risk that increases “[a]s an election draws closer.” Purcell v. Gonzalez,
549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006).
Some 300,000 Wisconsin registered voters lack the ID necessary to vote in
the upcoming election, and there is no realistic possibility that more than a handful
of these voters can secure the needed ID by November 4. See ECF No. 74, at 4.
Those without ID who do not learn about the recent change in voting requirements,
along with those who are unable to obtain an ID in the short time that is left, will
3
be unable to vote. The “right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the
essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart
of representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). “Other
rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry
v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). This Court should enter an immediate stay of the
judgment and resulting mandate to prevent thousands of Wisconsin residents being
deprived of the fundamental right to vote. See United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 315 (1941) (“within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right
of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted”).
Second, there is a fair prospect that the panel’s decision will be reversed. See
Chandler, 282 F.3d at 450. With respect to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, five
judges of this Court disapproved of the panel’s application of Crawford v. Marion
County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), to the “record-heavy” facts of this case.
ECF No. 73 at 11. Act 23 is much more stringent than Indiana’s law at issue in
Crawford. For instance, Act 23 lacks Indiana’s affidavit option that allows indigent
voters without identification to vote provisionally. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 199.
Also, unlike Wisconsin, Indiana law allows all voters over age 65 and all voters with
disabilities to vote absentee without photo ID or meeting any other requirements.
Ind. Code § 3-11-10-24(a)(4), (5); see also Crawford, 553 U.S. at 201 (“[Although it
may not be a completely acceptable alternative, the elderly in Indiana are able to
vote absentee without presenting photo identification.”).
4
Plaintiffs also are likely to obtain reversal of the panel’s decision rejecting
their claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As the district court
undisputedly found, Act 23 disproportionately burdens racial minorities in
Wisconsin, who are less likely to have a qualifying ID and face greater obstacles to
obtaining one. The disparate burdens on minority voters, moreover, result from
undisputed social and historical circumstances inexorably tied to discrimination.
See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 35 (1986) (“[T]he essence of a § 2 claim is
that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and
historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black
and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.”).
Lastly, this Court should “balance the equities of granting a stay by assessing
the harm to each party if a stay is granted.” Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826,
829 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, the equities weigh strongly in favor of Plaintiffs. To date,
Defendants-Appellees (“Defendants”) have been unable to point to any concrete
harm that they will suffer from maintaining the status quo until after the upcoming
election, to allow the en banc Court and the Supreme Court to review this case. In
particular, Defendants have not identified any examples of in-person voter fraud,
the particular harm against which Act 23 purports to guard.
For these reasons, this Court should grant Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a
stay pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for rehearing en banc
and, if necessary, a petition for a writ of certiorari.
5
Dated: October 7, 2014
CHARLES G. CURTIS, JR.
Arnold & Porter LLP
Suite 620
16 North Carroll Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 257-1922
s/ John C. Ulin
JOHN C. ULIN (Counsel of Record )
MARCO J. MARTEMUCCI
Arnold & Porter LLP
44th Floor
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 243-4000
CARL S. NADLER
ETHAN J. CORSON
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 942-6130
PENDA D. HAIR
KATHERINE CULLITON-GONZÁLEZ
LEIGH M. CHAPMAN
Advancement Project
Suite 850
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 728-9557
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Karyn L. Rotker
KARYN L. ROTKER (Counsel of Record)
LAURENCE J. DUPUIS
American Civil Liberties Union of
Wisconsin Foundation
207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 272-4032
DALE E. HO
SEAN J. YOUNG
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Inc.
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2693
NEIL A. STEINER
Dechert LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 698-3822
CRAIG G. FALLS
Dechert LLP
1900 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 261-3373
ANGELA M. LIU
Dechert LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 646-5816
6
NATHAN D. FOSTER
Arnold & Porter LLP
370 17th Street, Suite 4400
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 863-1000
DANIEL OSTROW
Arnold & Porter LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 715-1000
Attorneys for LULAC Plaintiffs-Appellees
JEREMY ROSEN
National Law Center on
Homelessness & Poverty
2000 M Street NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 347-3124
Attorneys for Frank Plaintiffs-Appellees
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and Mandate Pending Further Review with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF
system.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2014.
s/ Karyn L. Rotker s/ John C. Ulin
KARYN L. ROTKER (Counsel of Record)
American Civil Liberties Union of
Wisconsin Foundation
207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 272-4032
Attorney for Frank Plaintiffs-Appellees
JOHN C. ULIN (Counsel of Record)
Arnold & Porter LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 243-4000
Attorney for LULAC Plaintiffs-Appellees
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62
Case: 14-2058 Document: 65-1 Filed: 09/16/2014 Pages: 62