Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03091/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03091-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 

---

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 16‐3003 & 16‐3052

RUTHELLE FRANK, et al.,

Plaintiffs‐Appellees, Cross‐Appellants,

v.

SCOTT WALKER, in his official capacity as

Governor of the State of Wisconsin, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellants, Cross‐Appellees.

____________________

Nos. 16‐3083 & 16‐3091

ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs‐Appellees, Cross‐Appellants,

v.

MARK L. THOMSEN, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellants, Cross‐Appellees.

____________________

On Petitions for Initial Hearing En Banc

____________________

AMENDED AUGUST 29, 2016

____________________

Case: 16-3091 Document: 22 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pages: 4
2 Nos. 16‐3003, 16‐3052, 16‐3083 & 16‐3091

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER, FLAUM,

EASTERBROOK, KANNE, ROVNER, WILLIAMS, SYKES, and

HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.  Before us are two sets of appeals and cross‐

appeals, each of which concerns Wisconsin’s law requiring

voters to have qualifying photo identification. In each matter,

one originating in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the

other in the Western District of Wisconsin, the plaintiffs have

petitioned for initial review en banc. We have consolidated

their petitions for the purposes of this order. The plaintiffs ar‐

gue that only initial en banc treatment will permit a decision

in time for the court’s conclusions to be put into effect for the

election upcoming in November 2016. It is questionable

whether action on that schedule is feasible, given that Wis‐

consin will start printing absentee ballots at the end of this

month. We will assume for the sake of argument, however,

that this obstacle alone is not enough to deny the petitions.

There is a more important concern, however, which has to

do with the regularity of the judicial process. Whether this

court should try to resolve the parties’ disputes on such a

short schedule depends in part on whether qualified electors

will be unable to vote under Wisconsin’s current procedures.

In evaluating that question, we must take account of the con‐

clusions reached by the district court in the Western District

of Wisconsin in One Wisconsin Institute, Inc. v. Thomsen, No.

15‐CV‐324‐JDP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100178 (W.D. Wis. July

29, 2016). The Eastern District of Wisconsin, in the decision

under review in Nos. 16‐3003 and 16‐3052, concluded that

every registered voter should be allowed to vote if he or she

signs an affidavit stating that obtaining a qualifying photo ID

would be unreasonably hard. A panel of this court has stayed

Case: 16-3091 Document: 22 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pages: 4
Nos 16‐3003, 16‐3052, 16‐3083 & 16‐3091 3

that order. See Order, Frank v. Walker, Nos. 16‐3003 & 16‐3052

(7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016). The Western District, by contrast, de‐

clined to adopt the affidavit procedure but required Wiscon‐

sin to reform its ID Petition Process (IDPP), revised in May in

response to this court’s decision in Frank v. Walker, 819 F.3d

384 (7th Cir. 2016) (Frank II).

Frank II held that “[t]he right to vote is personal and is not

defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the

necessary credentials easily”, and that the state may not frus‐

trate this right for any eligible person by making it unreason‐

ably difficult to obtain a qualifying photo ID. Id. at 386. The

district court in One Wisconsin Institute concluded from this

that an eligible voter who submits materials sufficient to ini‐

tiate the IDPP is entitled to a credential valid for voting, un‐

less readily available information shows that the petitioner is

not a qualified elector. The court in One Wisconsin Insti‐

tute also held that the state must inform the general public

that those who enter the IDPP will promptly receive a creden‐

tial valid for voting, unless readily available information

shows that the petitioner is not a qualified elector entitled to

such a credential. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100178 at *181–82.

This court denied the State’s motion to stay the Western Dis‐

trict’s injunction pending appeal. See Order, One Wis. Inst.,

Inc. v. Thomsen, Nos. 16‐3083 & 16‐3091 (7th Cir. Aug. 22,

2016).  

The State assures us that the temporary credentials re‐

quired in the One Wisconsin Institute decision will indeed be

available to all qualified persons who seek them. In its re‐

sponse to the petition for initial hearing en banc in Nos. 16‐

3003 and 16‐3052, it said this: ʺ[T]he State has already volun‐

tarily accommodated any concerns relating to the November

Case: 16-3091 Document: 22 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pages: 4
4 Nos. 16‐3003, 16‐3052, 16‐3083 & 16‐3091

2016 election. Specifically, Wisconsin has enacted a rule that

requires the Division of Motor Vehicles (‘DMV’) to mail auto‐

matically a free photo ID to anyone who comes to DMV one

time and initiates the free ID process. See Wis. EmR1618, § 10.

No one must present documents, that, for some, have proved

challenging to acquire; no one must show a birth certificate,

proof of citizenship, and the like. Id. § 6.” Resp. to Pet. For

Initial Hr’g En Banc at 1, Frank v. Walker, Nos. 16‐3052 & 16‐

3003 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016) (emphasis in original).

Given the State’s representation that “initiation” of the

IDPP means only that the voter must show up at a DMV with

as much as he or she has, and that the State will not refuse to

recognize the “initiation” of the process because a birth certif‐

icate, proof of citizenship, Social Security card, or other par‐

ticular document is missing, we conclude that the urgency

needed to justify an initial en banc hearing has not been

shown. Our conclusion depends also on the State’s compli‐

ance with the district court’s second criterion, namely, that the

State adequately inform the general public that those who en‐

ter the IDPP will promptly receive a credential for voting, un‐

less it is plain that they are not qualified. The Western District

has the authority to monitor compliance with its injunction,

and we trust that it will do so conscientiously between now

and the November 2016 election.

On these understandings, the petitions for initial hearing

en banc are DENIED.

Case: 16-3091 Document: 22 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pages: 4