Information & Analysis

Go to Information & Analysis Archives

Federal Judge Dismisses Remaining Claims in Wisconsin Voter ID Case

Posted on October 20, 2015, 9:30 am

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued a decision and order dismissing the plaintiffs\' remaining claims in a Wisconsin voter ID case. Last year, the 7th Circuit reversed the judge\'s decision finding that Wisconsin\'s voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act and created an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining claims included whether not recognizing certain IDs violated Equal Protection and whether the law constituted a poll tax. The case is Frank v. Walker.

Fifth Circuit Affirms that Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Posted on August 5, 2015, 2:48 pm

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Texas voter ID case of Veasey v. Abbott, affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court\'s decision. The Fifth Circuit disagreed that Texas\' voter ID law is a poll tax under the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Court also vacated the District Court\'s judgment that the law was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose, remanding the case for a determination using the proper legal standard and evidence. However, the Court agreed that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to its discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

New Ohio Voting Case Filed

Posted on May 12, 2015, 8:37 am

Several plaintiffs recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that voting laws enacted by Ohio's Republican-controlled General Assembly since November 2012 violate various federal constitutional provisions as well as the Voting Rights Act. According to the complaint, the General Assembly has enacted laws that burden all Ohio voters but that were designed to and will disproportionately burden specific populations, particularly African-Americans, Latinos, and young people. The case is Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted.


Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.