Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Last Updated: July 31, 2014 at 5:54 PM

League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker

Case Information

Date Filed: October 20, 2011
State: Wisconsin
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: Dane County Circuit Court (Case 11CV4669); Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV (Case 2012AP584); Wisconsin Supreme Court (Case 2012AP584)

Issue:

Whether Wisconsin statute requiring voters to produce photo ID at the polls is constitutional.

Status:

Complaint filed 10/20/11. Defendant's motion to dismiss amended complaint filed 1/27/12. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed 2/3/12. Decision and Order Granting Summary Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed 3/12/12. Court of Appeals Certification of appeal for review by Wisconsin Supreme Court 3/28/12. Wisconsin Supreme Court's denial of petition for leave to appeal 4/16/12. Defendant's brief filed in Court of Appeals 5/25/12. Intervenor's brief filed 7/10/12. Plaintiffs' brief filed 8/20/12. 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. Court of Appeals opinion reversing trial court decision filed 5/30/13. Petition for Review filed 6/28/13. Petitioners' Brief in Wisconsin Supreme Court filed 12/20/13. Defendants-Appellants filed 1/17/14. Response Brief of Intervenors-Co-Appellants filed 1/17/14. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners' Reply Brief filed 2/6/14. Supreme Court opinion affirming court of appeals and upholding voter ID law filed 7/31/14.

See related Wisconsin voter ID cases: Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker, Frank v. Walker, and LULAC v. Deininger

Dane County Circuit Court Documents

Complaint (filed 10/20/11)
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/5/11)
Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/5/11)
Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 12/23/11)
Defendant's Reply Brief on Motion to Dismiss (filed 1/10/12)
Amended Complaint (filed 1/24/12)
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (filed 1/27/12)
Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (filed 1/27/12)
Defendant's Answer to Amended Complaint (filed 1/30/12)
Revised Amicus Brief of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (filed 2/2/12)
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 2/3/12)
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (filed 2/3/12)
Amicus Brief of Dane County (filed 2/15/12)
Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 2/16/12)
Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 2/23/12)
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed 3/5/12)
Decision and Order Granting Summary Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed 3/12/12)
Order Denying Stay (filed 3/20/12)
Letter from Supreme Court to Lester Pines - a petition for review has been filed (filed 7/2/13)

Court of Appeals Documents

Motion for Stay of Permanent Injunction Pending Appeal (filed 3/22/12)
Certification of Appeal for Review by Wisconsin Supreme Court (filed 3/28/12)
Brief of Defendants-Appellants (filed 5/25/12)
Brief of Intervenors (filed 7/10/12)
Brief of Plaintiffs-Respondents (filed 8/20/12)
Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants (filed 9/7/12)
Reply Brief of Intervenors-Appellants (filed 9/7/12)
Amicus Brief of Margaret Farrow et al (filed 9/24/12)
Amicus Brief of AARP (filed 9/27/12)
Amicus Brief of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (filed 9/28/12)
Amicus Brief of Dane County Board of Supervisors (filed 10/5/12)
Opinion Reversing Circuit Court Decision (filed 5/30/13)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Documents

Order Denying Petition for Leave to Appeal (filed 4/16/12)
Defendant's Petition to Bypass Court of Appeals (filed 8/21/12)
Motion for Stay (filed 8/21/12)
Order Denying Petition to Bypass (filed 9/27/12)
Petition for Review (filed 6/28/13)
Petitioners' Brief (filed 12/20/13)
Brief of Defendants-Appellants (filed 1/17/14)
Response Brief of Intervenors-Co-Appellants (filed 1/17/14)
Order that parties are to inform the court whether the two argements should be consolidated, how they propose to allot their time, and whether they are willing to cede any oral argument time to intervenors-co-appellants (filed 1/22/14)
Motion to Extend Time and Order Granting Motion (filed 1/24/14)
Plaintiff-Respondents' NAACP response to Court Order (filed 1/31/14)
Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners' Reply Brief (filed 2/6/14)
Defendant-Appellants' response to Court Order (filed 2/6/14)
Intervenors Co-Appellants' response Court Order (filed 2/6/14)
League Plaintiff-Respondents' response to Court Order (filed 2/6/14)
Opinion Upholding Voter ID Law (filed 7/31/14)

Commentary

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future.

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding, “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court: NC Redistricting Unconstitutional

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.

more info & analysis...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ 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 @ 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.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar