Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Frank v. Walker
Case Information
Date Filed: December 13, 2011
State: Wisconsin
Issue: Voter ID
Current Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case 2:11-cv-01128)
Issue:
Whether Wisconsin voter ID legislation is unconstitutional as applied to certain classes of eligible Wisconsin voters; more specifically, whether the legislation unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional poll tax, and violates the Equal Proection Clause in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.
Status:
Complaint filed 12/13/11.
See related Wisconsin voter ID cases: Jones v. Deininger, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker, and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 12/13/11) - Defendant's Answer to Complaint (filed 2/13/12)
- First Amended Complaint (filed 3/2/12)
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 3/2/12)
- Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction (filed 3/2/12)
- Declaration of Karyn Rotker (filed 3/2/12)
- Declaration of Shirley Brown (filed 3/2/12)
- Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 3/20/12)
- Reply Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction (filed 3/26/12)
- Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 3/30/12)
- Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (filed 4/10/12)
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 4/23/12)
- Support for Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed 4/23/12)
- Motion for Class Certification (filed 4/23/12)
- Support for Motion for Class Certification (filed 4/23/12)
- Protective Order (filed 5/09/12)
- Confidentiality Stipulation (filed 5/11/12)
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...