OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker

Case Information

Date Filed: December 16, 2011
State: Wisconsin
Issue: Voter ID
Current Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court (Case 2012AP001652)

Issue:

Whether Wisconsin statute requiring voters to produce photo ID at polls violates several provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Status:

Complaint filed 12/16/11. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction filed 1/18/12. Answer filed 2/6/12. Order granting motion for temporary injunction issued 3/12/12. Circuit court order denying Motion to Stay 3/15/12. Wisconsin Supreme Court order denying petition for leave to appeal 4/16/12. Trial held in circuit court 4/16/12 - 4/19/12 with decision expected after parties submit trial briefs by 6/18/12. Court of appeals order denying petition for leave to appeal and motion for stay 4/25/12. Permanent injunction issued by Circuit Court 7/17/12. Notice of Appeal filed 7/23/12. Defendant's Petition to Bypass Court of Appeals and Motion for Stay filed in Wisconsin Supreme Court 8/21/12. Order denying motion to bypass filed 9/27/12. Intervenors' Brief filed 10/10/12. Respondents' Brief filed 11/5/12. Intervenors' Reply Brief filed 11/21/12. State's Reply Brief filed 1/14/13. Petition to Bypass granted by Wisconsin Supreme Court 11/20/13 - case to be scheduled with League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker. Amicus brief of Disability Rights Wisconsin filed 12/13/13. Supreme Court opinion reversing circuit court and upholding voter ID law filed 7/31/14.

See related Wisconsin voter ID cases: League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker, Frank v. Walker, LULAC v. Deininger

Dane County Circuit Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Wisconsin Supreme Court Documents

Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

Why the Supreme Court Shouldn’t Intervene in Ohio

Daniel P. Tokaji

Briefing is now in the U.S. Supreme Court on Ohio’s emergency motion to stay the district court injunction restoring the rules regarding same day registration and early voting that existed before legislation enacted earlier this year (SB 238). In a previous post, I explained why the district court and Sixth Circuit panel’s rulings were faithful applications of legal precedent requiring close attention to the context in which restrictions on voting are enacted. This post explains why it would be unwise and disruptive for the Supreme Court to change the rules now – now literally on the eve of an election -- responding to comments that my colleague Ned Foley posted yesterday.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

SCOTUS Grants Stay in Ohio Early Voting Case

With a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted a stay in NAACP v. Husted. The court's action blocks a district court order issued earlier this month and allows Ohio's shortened early voting period to go into effect.

more info & analysis...