## In th e



# United States C ourt of Appeals

Fo r th e S even th Cir cu it

No. 10- 2836

G E R A L D A. J U D G E an d D A V I D

K I N D L E R ,

Pla int if fs -App el le es ,

v.

P A T Q U I N N , Gove r nor of

th e State of I lli noi s,

De fe ndan t

,

an d

R O L A N D W. B U R R I S , U .S. Se na tor

,

De fe ndan t- Appe ll ant

.

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f I l l i n o i s , E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n

. N o

. 0 9 C 1 2 3 1

— J o h n F

. G r a d y , J u d g e

.2 No. 10- 2836

S U B M I T T E D S E P T E M B E R 2 2

, 2 0 1 0

— D E C I D E D S E P T E M B E R 2 4

, 2 0 1 0 *

O P I N I O N * *

Be for e R O V N E R , W O O D , an d T I N D E R , Cir cuit Jud ges

.

W O O D , Cir cuit Jud

ge

. In th is appe al, Se na t or Rolan d Burr is
ch all e ng e s a pe r man e nt in jun cti on e nt e r e d by th e dist r ict cour t
aft e r our de cis ion in Jud ge v. Qu inn

, 612 F.3d 537 (7t h Cir

. 2010 ) (“ Jud ge I ”). Tha t in

jun cti on state s th at th e State of Ill in ois wi ll

hol d a spe cia l e le cti on on Nove mbe r 2, 2010

. In th at e le cti on, th e pe ople of Ill in ois wi ll se le ct a pe r man e nt r e plac e me nt to fi ll

Pr e s i d e nt Bar ack Obam a’s se at in th e U. S. Se na te for th e

r e main de r of th e 111t h Con gr e ss. Be cause Nove mbe r 2 i s fas t

appr oach in g an d in th e in te r e st of a man age abl e e le cti on, th e dist r ict cour t lim ite d th e can d i d a t e s wh o wi ll appe ar on th e bal lot for th e spe cia l e le cti on to th ose pe ople wh o ar e slat e d to

appe ar on the Nove mbe r 2 ballot in th e ge ne r al e le cti on to fill

th e six- ye ar Se na te te r m th at wi ll be gin at th e star t of th e 112t h

Con gr e ss. One pr acti cal e ff e ct of th is lim itat ion wa s to pr e ve nt
Se na tor Burr is, wh o wa s appoin te d t o se r ve as Pr e side nt
Obam a’s te mpor ar y r e plac e me nt i n t h e Se na te

, fr om

par tic ipati ng in th e spe cia l e le cti on. In th is appe al, Se na tor

Burr is asks us to va c a t e t he dist r ict cour t’s pe r man e nt

in jun cti on. We con clude th at th e low e r cour t acte d we ll wi th in

its disc r e tion , an d w e af fi r m it s or de r

.

I

We wi ll assume fam ili ar ity wi th our e ar lie r opin ion

, wh ich

A f t e r a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e b r i e f s a n d t h e r e c o r d

, w e h a v e *

c o n c l u d e d t h a t o r a l a r g u m e n t i s u n n e c e s s a r y

. T h u s t h e a p p e a l i s

s u b m i t t e d o n t h e b r i e f s a n d t h e r e c o r d

. F E D

. R

. A P P

. P

. 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 )

.

T h i s o p i n i o n i s b e i n g i s s u e d i n t y p e s c r i p t ; p r i n t e d v e r s i o n * *

t o f o l l o w

.No. 10- 2836 3

de scr ibe d th e bac kgr ound of th is case , an d so we addr e ss he r e onl y th e fac ts ne ce ssar y to r e solv e th is succe s s i v e appe al. On Jun e 16, 2010

, we aff ir me d th e dist r ict cour t’s de cis ion to de ny

a pr e lim in ar y in

jun cti on to tw o Ill in o is voter s wh o cla ime d th at
th e Se ve nt e e nt h A me nd me nt r e qui r e d Pa t Quin n, th e Gove r nor of Ill in ois, to issue a wr it cal lin g for a spe cia l e le cti on

to se le ct a pe r man e nt r e plac e me nt for Pr e side nt Obam a’s
for me r se at i n th e Se na te

. Jud ge I

, supr a

.

Our an alys is of th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e n d m e n t le d to th e

con clusi o n th at a state must hol d an e le cti on e ach time th at a

vac an cy occur s in its Se na te de le gati on, so th at th e p e o p l e of

th e state can e le ct a r e plac e me nt se na tor

. To e ns ure th at such

an e le cti on ta k e s plac e , th e e xe cutiv e off ice r of th e state is

r e qui r e d by th e Con stit ution to issue a wr it of e le cti on. The

timi ng an d me ch an ics of t he spe cia l e le cti on ar e gove r ne d by

state law

, as con te mpla te d b y t he Ele cti ons Clause of th e Con stit ution an d th e fi na l phr ase of th e Se v e nt e e nt h

Am e nd me nt ’s se con d par agr aph

. Fin all y, th e Se ve nt e e nt h

Am e nd me nt pe r mits th e state le gisl atur e to e mpow e r th e state

e xe cutiv e to fi ll a Se na te vac an cy te mpor ar ily by appoin tme nt

,

un t i l a spe cia l e le cti on take s plac e

. Jud ge I

, 612 F.3d at 554- 55.

At th e time of th e plai nt if fs’ in i tial appe al in th is case , Gove r nor Quin n ha d not issue d a wr it of e le cti on, an d th e State

of Ill in ois took th e positi on th at Se na tor Burr is wa s to se r ve as Pr e side nt Obam a’s r e plac e me nt in th e Se na te unt il Jan uar y 3,

2011

. The y main tain e d th is positi on de spite th e fac t th at th e nGove r nor Blag oje vic h’ s ce r tif ica te appoin tin g Se na tor Burr is
made cle ar th at hi s te nur e in th e Se na te wa s to last onl y “unt il

th e vac an cy

. . . is fi l l e d by e le cti on as pr ovide d by law .”

Ac cor din gly, we con clude d th a t t he plai nt if fs ha d a str ong lik e lih ood of succe ss on th e me r its of th e ir con stit ution al cla im.

Ul tima te ly, how e ve r , we de cid e d th at pr e lim in ar y r e lie f wa s

n o t wa r r an te d be cause th e plai nt if fs fai le d to ide nt if y an y ir r e par abl e ha r m th at th e y migh t s uf fe r in th e abs e nc e of

imme diat e e qui tabl e r e lie f. We not e d th e r e wa s still ampl e time
duri ng wh ich Gove r nor Quin n migh t issue a wr it of e le cti on,

an d we fe lt conf ide nt th at the dist r ict cour t would re solv e th e

m e r i ts of th e plai nt if fs’ cla im in a time ly fas hi on. Be cause th e4 No. 10- 2836

issue wa s not pr e se nt e d in th e plai nt if fs’ appe al, we de cli ne d

to addr e ss how th e state wa s to de ci d e wh at na me s sh ould

appe ar on th e bal lot for th e spe cia l e le cti on. We did sugge st,
how e ve r , th at th e state migh t pr opose a soluti on acc e ptabl e to
all par tie s. Jud ge I

, 612 F.3d at 55 6-5 7.

Foll owi ng our de cis ion

, th e plai nt if fs aske d th e dist r ict cour t

to e nt e r a pe r man e nt in jun cti on or de r in g Gove r nor Q ui nn to

issue a wr it of e le cti on th at woul d cal l for a spe cia l e le cti on on Nove mbe r 2, 2010

, th e dat e s p e c if ie d by th e Ill in ois Ele cti on Code

, 10 ILCS 5/25- 8 (W e st 2010 ). On Jun e 23, 2010

, th e dist r ict

c o ur t h e ld th e fi r st of fi ve he ar in gs to con side r th e plai nt if fs ’

r e que st. Law ye r s fo r th e plai nt if fs, Gove r nor Quin n, an d

Se na tor Burr is we r e pr e se nt

. Gove r nor Quin n oppose d th e in jun cti on, sayi ng th at a se con d e le cti on on Nove mbe r 2 woul d

cause vote r con fusi on, th at th e r e wa s too lit tle time to pr e par e ,

an d th at th e Ill in ois Ele cti on Code fai le d to outlin e an y me th od

for se le cti ng can didat e s to par tic ipate

. S enat o r B u rris joi ne d th e

gove r nor ’s opposit ion

. In r e spon se , th e plai nt if fs pr op o s e d a

n um b e r of pote nt ial soluti ons to th e purpor te d timi ng an d

can didat e -se le cti on pr oble ms. The dist r ict cour t postpon e d its
de cis ion wh ile Gove r nor Quin n fi le d a pe titi on in th is cour t for

r e he ar in g.

On Jun e 28, 2010

, Gove r nor Quin n fi le d hi s pe titi on for

r e he ar in g an d r e he ar in g en banc . A mon g oth e r ar gume nt s, h e agai n asse r te d th at i t woul d be imposs ibl e for Ill in ois to

pr e pa r e f or a spe cia l e le cti on in compl ian ce wi th th e Ill in ois
Ele cti on Code in th e time r e main in g be for e Nove mbe r 2. The plai nt if fs fi le d an e xpe dite d r e spon se , e xplain in g th at a Nove mbe r 2 spe cia l e le cti on wa s fe asib le if th e state ove r r ode

th e nor mal pr imar y syst e m for se le cti ng can didat e s for th e bal lot a n d use d a mor e e xpe diti ous me th od. We de ni e d

r e he ar in g on July 22, at wh ich poin t we ame nd e d our in iti al

de cis ion to ma ke cl e ar th at

[t] he dist r ict cour t has the powe r to or de r th e state to take

ste ps to br in g its e le cti on pr oce dure s in to compl ian ce wi th

r i gh ts guar an te e d by th e fe de r al Con stit ution

, e ve n if t h e

or de r r e qui r e s th e state to disr e gar d pr ovis ion s of state lawNo. 10- 2836 5

th at oth e r wi se migh t or din ar ily apply to cause de lay or

pr e ve nt acti on e nt ir e l y

. . . . To th e e xte nt th at Ill in ois law

make s compl ian ce wi th a pr ovis ion of th e fe de r al

Con stit ution dif fi cult or imposs ibl e , it is Ill in ois law th at must yi e ld.

Jud ge v. Qu inn

, 2010 WL 2853 645, at *1 (7t h Cir

. July 22, 2010 ) (un publi sh e d or de r ) ( “ Jud ge I I” ).

Four days aft e r th at or de r , th e dist r i c t cour t he ld its four th

he ar in g to con side r th e pe r man e nt in jun cti on. Ab an don in g hi s

e ar lie r pos iti on, Gove r nor Quin n th e r e ackn owl e dge d th at a

spe cia l e le cti on wa s possib le

. Thi s me an t th at all of th e par tie s th e n agr e e d th at a pr imar y wa s unn e ce ssar y. Gove r nor Quin n

pr opose d th at th e cour t disr e gar d th e r e qui r e me nt s o f t he

Ill in ois Ele cti on Code an d lim it th e spe cia l e le cti on bal lot to

can didat e s wh o h a d be e n se le cte d in pr imar ie s (or ha d

coll e cte d th e r e qui s ite numb e r of sign atur e s) an d we r e se t to

appe ar on th e Nove mbe r 2 ge ne r al e le cti on bal lot for th e ne w, six- y e a r Se na te te r m. Tha t pr e cis e pr oce dure

, th e par tie s

agr e e d, ha d be e n use d in Ill in ois to se le ct ca n d idat e s for a

spe cia l e le cti on to th e U. S. H ouse of Re pr e se nt ativ e s fol low in g

our de cis ion in Ja ckso n v. Og il vie , 426 F.2d 1333 (7t h Cir

. 1970 ).

Se e Vo te Set fo r H ous e V acancy , Ch ica go Tr ibun e , Jul y 28, 197 0,

at 3. Wh ile th e plai nt i f f s in iti all y put for wa r d a plan unde r wh ich t he ce nt r al commi tte e s of th e state ’s polit ica l par tie s woul d ch oose can didat e s for th e spe cia l e le cti on, in acc or dan ce wi th th e vac an cy pr ovis ion s of th e Ill in ois Ele cti on Code

, th e y made cl e ar th at th e y did not obj e ct t o th e gove r nor ’s plan

.

Se na tor Burr is, how e ve r , wa s not sati sfi e d. H e oppose d an y plan th at woul d le ave hi m (or oth e r in te r e ste d cit ize ns , he said )
off th e spe cia l e le cti on bal lot. H e pr opose d th at th e dist r ict

cour t e nt e r an in

jun cti on pr ovidi ng th at par tie s wh o coll e cte d

a lim ite d numb e r of sign atur e s woul d als o b e e n titl e d to

appe ar on th e bal lot for th e s p e cia l e le cti on. Gove r nor Quin n

urge d th e c o ur t to r e je ct th at ide a, ar guin g th at an e nt ir e ly

nov e l qua lif yin g pr oce dure woul d be much too compl ica te d to impl e me nt in th e sh or t time th at r e main e d. In r e spon se , th e dist r ict cour t aske d th e par tie s wh e th e r th e y woul d obj e ct to its6 No. 10- 2836

or de r in g th at Se na tor Burr is sh ould be in clude d on th e spe cia l

e le cti on bal lot by fi at. Se na tor Burr is suppor te d th at pr oposal

. But th e plai n t i f f s not e d th at Se na tor Burr is’ s appoin tme nt to
th e Se na te did not give hi m a spe cia l cla im to a s pot on th e bal lot ove r an y oth e r cit ize n, an d Gove r nor Quin n adde d th at
th e pr e se nc e of Se na tor Burr is o n t h e l ist of spe cia l e le cti on

can didat e s migh t cause con fusi on amon g vote r s if he wa s th e n abs e nt fr om th e lis t of ge ne r al e le cti on can didat e s on th e same bal lot. As th e he ar in g clos e d, th e dist r ict judge aske d Gove r nor Quin n an d the plai nt if fs to re tur n late r th at w e e k w ith a dr aft

in jun cti on or de r

. Se na tor Burr is, stil l obj e cti ng to hi s pote nt ial

e xclusi on, aske d to submi t a br ie f in opposit ion to an y or de r , to
wh ich th e cour t r e spon de d, “I don ’t ne e d an y br ie fs on th is.

But I wi ll he ar you full y wh e n we ha ve an or de r

. . . . [D] on’ t
be af r aid th at you w on’ t h ave an oppor tuni ty to b e h e ar d.”

On July 29, the dist r ict cour t he ld its fif th an d fi na l h e ar in g. Gove r nor Quin n an d th e plai nt if fs ar r ive d h a v in g r e ach e d

agr e e me nt on th e con tour s of a pe r man e nt in ju n c t i on or de r

. A fte r a disc ussion about how lon g th e state woul d ha ve to

ce r tif y e le cti on r e sult s , th e cour t aske d Se na tor Burr is’ s

attor ne y wh a t r igh t Se na tor Burr is ha d to be plac e d on th e

spe cia l e le cti on bal lot as oppose d to an y oth e r pe r son

. The

a t t or ne y r e spon de d, “I don ’t kn ow th at Se na tor Burr is i s

sugge stin g th at th e r e is a r igh t outside of th e r igh t th at sh ould

be aff or de d to an y pe r so n to ha ve bal lot acc e ss. H e be lie ve s th at to be a con stit ution al r igh t.” Se na tor Burr is also submi tte d

a bri e f in oppositi on to th e pe r man e nt in jun cti on, in wh ich he

ar gue d that the dist r ict cour t ha d de ni e d hi m the oppor tuni ty

to be he ar d an d th r e ate ne d to viol ate hi s r igh t to a c c e s s th e bal lot b y iss uin g an in

jun cti on.

The dist r ict judge de cid e d it woul d adopt Gove r nor Quin n’ s

p r o p o sal, r e str ict in g th e spe cia l e le cti on bal lot to th ose

can didat e s slat e d to r un in th e ge n e r a l e l e cti on. At th e same time , in Spr in gfi e ld, I lli noi s, Gov e r nor Quin n issue d a w r it of

e le cti on. H e comma nd e d th e cle r ks in e ach coun ty “to cause a SPEC IA L ELECTION to p e r man e nt ly fi ll [P r e side nt Obam a’s

vac an cy] for th e r e main de r of H on. Obam a’s te r m to be he ld in
th e STATE OF ILLINOIS on TUESD AY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010 inNo. 10- 2836 7

con for mity wi th an y appli cab le fe de r al cour t or de r s an d, to th e

e xte nt fe asib le , w ith th e Ill in ois E le cti on Code

. . . .”

On August 4, 2010

, th e dist r ict cour t e nt e r e d its pr e lim in ar y in jun cti on or de r

. In th e or de r , th e dist r ict cour t con fi r me d th at
th e Ill in ois E le cti on Code e stab lis he d Nove mbe r 2 as th e date

for a spe cia l e le cti on, a n d it foun d th at th e wr it of e le cti on issue d by Gove r nor Quin n compl ie d wi th th e fe de r al

Con stit ution an d Ill in ois law

. In addit ion

, th e d istr ict cour t

not e d th at it ha d con ducte d fi ve se par ate he ar in gs “to con side r

pr oce dure s f or con ducti ng a spe cia l e le cti on on sh or t n otic e ,”

an d it r e cogn ize d th at “to th e e xte nt th at Ill in ois law make s compl ian ce wi th a pr ovis ion of th e f e de r al Con stit ution
dif fi cult or impos s i b l e , i t is Ill in ois law th at must yie ld to th e

e xte nt th at it oth e r wi se migh t apply to cause de lay or pr e ve nt

acti on e nt ir e ly.” Jud ge II

. Notin g th a t a p r imar y e le cti on wa s

not ne ce ssar y an d th at can didat e s ha d to be lim i t e d t o a

man age abl e n um be r , th e cour t e nt e r e d its or de r adopti ng Gove r nor Quin n’ s can didat e

- s e le cti on plan

. Se na tor Burr is’ s

appe al f ollow e d. 1

II

We r e vie w a dist r ict cour t’s e nt r y of a pe r man e nt in jun cti on for an abuse of disc r e tion

. e36 0 Ins igh t v. The Spam haus Pro je ct

,

On Se pte mbe r 3, 2 010, Se na tor Bur r is f ile d a M otion 1

for Stay of Dis tr ict Cour t Or de r an d a P e titi on for a W r it of

Man damus i n th is c ourt . Both of t he se r e pr e se nt e d e ff or ts to

pr e ve nt th e dist r ict cour t’s in jun cti on fr om tak in g e ff e ct. Th is

cour t de ni e d both th e moti on an d th e pe titi on on Se pte mbe r 8, 20 10, a t w hi ch tim e we e xpe dite d th is a ppe al. Se na tor

Burr is a lso f ile d an A pplic atio n (No. 1 0A 272) wi th Just ice

Br e ye r , in h is c apac ity a s Cir cuit Justi ce for th e Se ve nt h

Cir cuit, se e kin g a st ay of e nf or ce me nt of t he dist r ict cour t’s judgm e nt . On Se pte mbe r 20, 2010 , Just ice Br e ye r de ni e d th e Appl ica tion

.8 No. 10- 2836

500 F.3d 594, 603 (7t h Cir

. 2007 ). In an e le cti on law case , “[t ]h e

e sse nt ial que stion

. . . is wh e th e r th e Dist r ict Cour t pr ope r ly

e xe r cis e d its e qui tabl e di s c r e t i o n i n r e c o n cil in g th e

r e qui r e me nt s of th e Co n s tituti on wi th th e goals of state polit ica l pol icy .” Conno r v. Fin ch , 431 U .S. 40 7, 41 4 ( 1977 ).

Se na tor Burr is’ s pr in cipa l con te nt ion in th is appe al is th at th e dist r ict cour t lac ke d th e powe r to e nt e r a pe r man e nt in jun cti on de fi ni ng th e me ch an ics of th e Nove mbe r 2 s p e c ial e le cti on. Thi s ar gume nt is spli t in to tw o clos e ly r e late d br an ch e s: fi r st,
th e Se na tor cla im s th at th e low e r cour t’s or de r con ce r ns a

non just ic ia bl e polit ica l que stion ; an d se con d, he asse r ts th at th e in jun cti on in vade s th e e xclusi ve p r o v in ce of th e Ill in ois state
le gisl atur e , in viol atio n of th e Ele cti ons Clause an d t h e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt

. In addit ion to th e se a r g um e nt s, Se na tor Burr is take s th e positi on th at th e pe r man e nt in jun cti on in te r fe r e s w ith h is c ons tituti ona l r igh t of acc e ss to th e bal lot.

A

We be gin wi th th e polit ica l- que sti o n ar gume nt

, for if th is

case pr e se nt s an issue t h a t f all s wi th in th e scope of th at
doctr in e , th e n we lac k auth or ity to adj udica te it. Ma ssa chuse tt s

v. EPA

, 549 U. S. 497, 516 (20 07) (c iti ng Luth er v. Bor den

, 7 H ow. 1 (18 49) ). C ont r ar y to th e plai nt if fs’ sugge stion

, it make s no dif fe r e nc e wh e th e r Se na tor Burr is r aise d th is ar gume nt be for e th e dist r ict cour t; it aff e cts our jur isdi cti on an d can not b e for fe ite d.

T he p o li ti ca l- qu est io n d o ctrin e “ide nt if ie s a cla ss of que stions
th at e ith e r ar e not ame na ble to judici al re soluti on be cause th e

r e le van t con side r atio ns ar e be yon d t h e cour ts’ capa cit y to

g a t h e r an d we igh

, . . . or ha ve be e n commi tte d by t h e Con stit ut ion to th e e xclusi ve , unr e vie wa ble disc r e tion of th e

ex ecu ti ve an d/or le gisl ativ e – th e so-c all e d ‘pol iti cal ’

– branc hes

of th e fe de r al gove r nm e nt .” Mi am i Na ti on of Ind ia ns of Ind ia na, Inc. v. U. S. De pt. of the Int eri or , 255 F.3d 342, 347 (7t h Cir

. 2001 ).

The Supre me Cour t’s de cis ion in Bak er v. Carr se ts out th e now

fam ili ar fac tor s th at, if pr e se nt

, sugge st th at a polit ica l que stion

e xists:No. 10- 2836 9

[A ] te xtually de mon str abl e con stit ut ion al commi tme nt of

th e iss ue to a coor din ate poli tic al d e par tme nt ; or a lack of judi cia lly disc ove r abl e an d man age abl e stan dar ds for

r e solv in g it; o r th e imposs ibi lit y of de cid in g wi th out an in iti al polic y de te r min atio n o f a kin d cle ar ly for non judi cia l

disc r e tion ; or th e imposs ibi lit y of a cour t’s unde r tak i n g in de pe nd e nt r e soluti on w i t h o ut e xpre ssin g lac k of th e

r e spe ct due coor din ate br an ch e s of gove r nm e nt ; or an unusual ne e d for unq ue stion in g adh e r e nc e to a p o l i tic al

d e c i s i o n a l r e a d y m a d e ; o r t h e p o t e n t i a l i t y o f

e mba r r assm e nt fr om multi far ious pr onoun ce me nt s by

var ious de par tme nt s on on e q ue stion

.

369 U. S. 186, 217 (19 62)

. I mpor tan tly, th e Bak er Cour t adde d

th at “[t ]h e doctr in e

. . . is one of ‘pol iti cal que stion s,’ not one of ‘pol iti cal case s.’ The cour ts can not r e je ct as ‘n o law suit’ a bon a fi de con tr ove r sy as to wh e th e r some act ion de nom in ate d ‘pol iti cal ’ e xce e ds con stit ution al auth or ity.” Id. Se na tor Burr is

sugge sts t h a t se ve r al of th e con side r atio ns Bak er v. Carr

ide nt if ie d as t e nd in g to r e ve al a polit ica l q ue stion ar e pr e se nt

in hi s case

. In our v i e w, how e ve r , th e onl y one s th at r e qui r e clos e r atte n t i o n ar e wh e th e r th e r e is a lac k of judi cia lly

man age abl e stan dar ds for impl e me nt in g th e spe cia l e le cti on or if th e con duct of th at e le cti on is e nt ir e ly commi tte d to th e polit ica l b r an ch e s.

Wi th r e spe ct to th e fi r st of th ose issue s, bot h h i s t or y an d

con stit ution al te xt sh ow th at t h i s c ase is not one wh e r e

r e ason abl e pe ople migh t disa gr e e about th e avai lab ili ty o f judi cia lly man age abl e stan dar ds. But compare Vi et h v. Jub el ir er , 541 U. S. 267 (20 04)

, an d Da vis v. Band em er , 478 U. S. 109 (19 86)

. The Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt supplie s a con cr e te r ule

r e q ui r i ng an e le cti on to fi ll e ach Se na te vac an cy. The dist r ict

cour t tur ne d t o s tate law

, past pr acti ce in Ill in ois, an d r e ce nt

pr imar y e le cti on r e sults to e stab lis h th e timi ng of th e r e qui r e d

s p e c i a l e le cti on an d a fai r slat e of can didat e s to par tic ipate

. Noth in g th at th e cour t did in or de r to br in g Ill in ois’ s e le cti on

pr oce dure s in to lin e w i t h th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt wa s be yon d its ca paci ty.10 No. 10- 2836

Simi lar ly, th is c a s e doe s not in volv e an issue commi tte d to
th e e xclusi ve disc r e tion of one of th e polit ica l br an ch e s. Se na to r Burr is take s th e vie w th at, be cause th e Con stit ution commi ts to
th e Ill in ois le gisl atu r e th e job of de fi ni ng th e me ch an ics of a

vac an cy e le cti on, th e fe de r al dist r ict cour t ha s no in stit ution al

r ole to pla y

. B ut a lon g lin e of de cis ion s fr om th e Supre me Cour t de mon str ate th at he is wr ong

. The Cour t ha s said th at “[w ]h e n ch all e ng e s to state acti on r e spe cti ng m a t t e r s of th e admi ni str atio n of th e aff air s o f t h e State an d th e off ice r s th r ough wh om th e y ar e con ducte d ha ve r e ste d on cla ims of

con stit ution al de pr iva tion wh ich ar e ame na ble to judi cia l

cor r e cti on, ” fe de r al cour ts may act to addr e ss t h e m e r its of

th ose cla ims. Bak er , 36 9 U. S. at 229 (i nt e r na l quota tion mar ks

an d footn ote omi tte d). In de e d, th e Cour t r e pe ate dly ha s he ld

th at a fe de r al cour t may cor r e ct con stit ution al wr ong s in ar e as

g e ne r all y wi th in th e purv ie w of state law make r s, an d it ha s

a pplie d th is pr in cipl e to th e ar e a of e le cti ons

. In addit ion to
Bak er , supr a , se e Wi ll ia m v. Rhod es , 393 U. S. 23, 28 (19 68) (“[ The

state ’s] cla im th at th e polit ica l- que stion doctr in e pr e clude s judi cia l con side r atio n of th e se case s r e qui r e s ve r y lit tle

disc ussion

. Tha t cla im ha s be e n r e je cte d in case s of th is k in d

nume r ous time s.”) ; Bond v. Flo yd

, 385 U. S. 116, 130 (19 66) (“Th e State doe s not cla im th at it sh ould be compl e te ly fr e e of judi cia l

r e vie w wh e ne ve r it disq ualif ie s an e le cte d Re pr e se nt ativ e ; it
admi ts th at, if a State Le gisl atur e e xclude d a le gisl ator on r aci al

or oth e r cle ar ly unc ons tituti ona l gr ounds

, th e fe de r al judi cia r y woul d b e j us t if ie d in te stin g th e e xclusi on by fe de r al

con stit ution al stan dar ds.”) ; Reyno lds v. Sim s , 377 U. S. 533, 585 (19 64) (“[ O]n ce a State ’s le gisl ativ e appor tion me nt sch e me ha s be e n foun d to be unc ons tituti ona l, it woul d be th e unusual case in wh ich a cour t woul d be j ustif ie d in not taki ng appr opr iate

acti on to insur e th at no furt he r e le cti ons ar e con ducte d u nd e r th e in val id p l a n .”) ; We sb err y v. Sand ers , 376 U. S. 1, 6-7 (19 64) (n otin g th at “n oth in g in th e lan guage of [th e Ele cti ons Clause ] give s suppor t to a con str uction th at woul d immun ize state

con gr e ssion al appor tio n m e nt law s wh ich de bas e a cit ize ns

r igh t to vote fr om th e powe r of cour ts to pr o t e c t t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f i n d i v i d ua l s f r o m l e g i s l a t i v e de str uction ”); Gom il li on v. Lig htf oot

, 364 U. S. 339, 344- 345 (19 60)No. 10- 2836 11

(st r iki ng down muni cipa l boun dar ie s th at im pair e d voti ng

r i g h t s a n d c o n c l udin g th at “ [ l ] e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l o f

muni cipa lit ie s, no le ss th an oth e r state powe r , lie s wi th in th e

scope of r e le van t lim itat ion s impose d by th e Un ite d State s Con stit ution ”). As we not e d in Jud ge II

, wh e r e state acti on (or

,

as he r e , in acti on) in fr i n g e s r igh ts guar an te e d by th e fe de r al

Con sti t ut i o n , th e fe de r al cour ts ha ve th e powe r to he ar case s

an d fa sh ion r e me die s to r e dr e ss th e con stit ution al w r ong

.

B

Se na tor Burr is ne xt asse r ts th at th e dist r ict cour t usurpe d th e

con stit ution al r ole of th e Ill in ois Ge ne r al As s e m b ly wh e n it
d e c i d e d how can didat e s sh ould be se le cte d for th e spe cia l

e l e c t i o n an d se t a de adli ne for ce r tif yin g e le cti on r e sults. The phr ase “as t h e le gisl atur e may dir e ct,” wh ich con clude s th e

se con d par agr ap h o f th e S event eenth Ame nd me nt

, U. S. C O N S T

.

ame nd

. XVII, par a. 2, aff ir ms th at th e Am e n d me nt wa s not

in te nd e d to disr upt th e all ocat ion of powe r e stab lis he d by th e E l e c t i o n s Clause of th e Con stit ution to dic tate th e te r ms of

e le cti ons

. Se e U. S. C O N S T

. ar t. I, § 4

, c l

. 1

. J udge I

, 612 F.3d at

552- 54; se e a l s o N ewb err y v. Un it ed Sta te s , 256 U. S. 232, 252 (19 21)

. Ac cor din gly, “State law con tr ols th e timi ng an d o t he r

pr oce dura l aspe cts of vacan cy e le cti ons . Th e Ele cti ons Cla use obli ge s th e state to make th e se r ule s, an d th e fi na l phr ase of th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt ’s se con d par agr aph r e aff ir ms th is

r ole .” Jud g e I

, 612 F.3d at 554. Notw ith stan din g th e se auth or iti e s, Se na tor Burr is main tain s th at t h e dist r ict cour t’s

or de r off e nd s th e Con stit ution

.

As an in iti al matte r , Se n ator Burr is fai le d to r aise th is

ar gume nt be for e th e dist r ict cour t. An d th is ar gume nt , u nl ike

th e justi cia bil ity cla im we disc usse d abov e , can be for fe ite d. A

par ty wh o fai ls to pr e se nt an ar gume nt in th e tr ial cour t for fe its
th e positi on on appe al, unl e ss we ch oose to e nt e r tain it “in th e in te r e sts of justi ce .” Hu mp hri es v. CBO CS We st

, I n c. , 474 F.3d
387, 391 (7t h Cir

. 2007 ). In th is case , we se e no r e ason to take

th is unusual ste p. In th e dist r ict cour t

, Se na tor Burr is wa s

pe r fe ctl y con te nt wi th th e dist r ict cour t’s powe r to f ash ion an

or de r d i c tati ng wh at can didat e s woul d par tic ipate in th e12 No. 10- 2836

Nove mbe r 2 spe cia l e le cti on, so lon g a s h e wa s in clude d

amon g th ose can didat e s. H e a ske d th e dist r ict cour t to impl e me nt a sign atur e -ga th e r in g me ch an ism th at woul d all ow hi m to e ar n a plac e on th e bal lot; an d, wh e n th at ide a fai le d, he

e nc oura ge d th e cour t to a dd h im t o th e bal lot b y vi r tue of t he

fac t th at he wa s th e te mpor ar y appoin te e

. Not onc e in th e fi ve he ar in gs be for e th e in

jun cti on issue d did Se na tor Burr is ar gue th at th e dist r ict cour t lac ke d th e auth or ity to e stab lis h a slat e of

can didat e s, an d hi s wr itte n obj e cti on s to th e in jun cti on, submi tte d on Jul y 2 9

, do not me nt ion th is poin t e ith e r

. Thi s

cour t wi ll not ove r tur n an in jun cti on bas e d on an ar gume nt not

pr e se nt e d to th e dist r ict cour t, Russ ia n Me dia Grou p, LLC v. Cab le Ame ri ca, Inc.

, 59 8 F .3d 302, 308- 09 (7t h Cir

. 2010 ), an d

th e r e is no good r e ason to make an e xc e p t i o n in th is case , wh e r e Se na tor Burr is took a positi on in th e low e r cour t th at is
th e opposit e of t he on e h e adva nc e s h e r e

.

Eve n if Se na tor Bu r r i s ha d not for fe ite d th e ar gume nt

, he

woul d be no be tte r off

. Our pr e vious disc ussion of th e polit ica lque stion doctr in e ampl y d emon str ate s th e powe r of th e dist r ict

cour t to fas hi on an e qui tabl e r e me dy in th is case

. In th e fac e of

a const ituti ona l viola tion , it make s no dif fe r e nc e th at both th e Ele cti ons Clause an d th e fi na l phr ase of th e Se ve nt e e nt h

Am en dme nt ’s se con d par agr aph assi gn pr imar y r e spo ns ib il it y

to th e state s f or con tr olli ng th e timi ng an d oth e r pr oce dura l

aspe cts of vac an cy e le cti ons

. The same can be said of coun tle ss oth e r ar e as in wh ich

, onc e a con stit ution al viol atio n ha s be e n

pr ove n, fe de r al cour ts ha ve th e powe r to issue r e me dial or de r s tail or e d to th e scope of th e con stit ution al viol atio n. Se e , e.g. , Ame ri can Trucki ng Ass’ n, Inc. v. Sm it h, 496 U. S. 167 (19 90) (st ate

taxati on) ; Hu tt o v. Finn ey , 437 U. S. 678 (19 78) ; Mi ll ik en v. Bra dle y, 418 U. S. 717, 744- 45 (19 74) (sc hool de se gr e ga t i o n );

Swann v. Char lo tt e- Me ck l e n b u rg Bd. of Ed.

, 402 U. S. 1, 15 (19 71) (sc hool de se gr e gati on) ; Bro wn v. Boa rd of Ed u ca t io n , 349 U. S. 294, 299- 300 (19 55)

. As Gove r nor Quin n r e ce nt ly poin te d out in

hi s opposi t i o n t o a stay of th e dist r ict cour t’s or de r in th e Supre me Cour t, “On ce th e appe lla te cour t

. . . de te r min e d th at
th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me n t r e qui r e d

. . . an e le cti on, it wa s imposs ibl e to hol d th e e le cti on in t he man ne r se t for th by th eIll in ois le gisl atur e

. In th at cir cumsta nc e , th e dist r ict cour t wa s

r e qui r e d to r e me dy th e con stit ution al viol atio n pe r ce ive d by

th e Se ve nt h Cir cuit, some th in g th at wa s unq ue sti o na bl y wi th in
th e cour t’s powe r .” Me mor an dum o f G ove r nor Pa t Quin n in Opposit ion at 16, Burr is v. Jud ge, et al

. , No. 10A 272 (U .S. Se p. 17,

2010 ) ( cit in g Sm it h v. Rob ins on , 468 U .S. 99 2, 10 12 n .15 ( 1984 ))

.

C

Wi th r e spe ct to Se na tor Burr is’ s fi na l ar gume nt

, we can be

b r ie f. Se na tor Burr is con te nd s th at th e dist r ict cour t’s or de r , wh ich wa s de sign e d to re me dy a viol atio n of th e Se ve nt e e nt h

Am e nd me nt

, unc ons tituti ona lly bloc ks not onl y hi s acc e ss to
th e bal lot but also th at of an y oth e r s wh o migh t be in te r e ste d

in r unn in g in th e spe cia l e le cti on. In suppor t of th is ar gume nt

, Se na tor Burr is lis ts a numb e r of case s wh e r e th e Supre me C o u r t ha s str uck down bal lot acc e ss r e str ict ion s as viol atin g th e Eq ual Pr ote cti on Clause

, th e Fir st Am e nd m e nt guar an te e of

fr e e dom of assoc iati on, an d th e Quali fi cati ons Clause of Ar tic le
I, Se cti on 3. Se e Wi ll ia ms v. Rhod es , 393 U. S. 23 (19 68)

, Ander son

v. Cel eb rez ee , 460 U. S. 780 (19 8 3 )

, a n d U. S. Ter m Lim it s, Inc. v. Thor nto n , 514 U. S. 7 79 (19 95)

, r e spe cti ve ly. But apar t fr om all e gin g ge ne r all y th at hi s e xclusi on fr om th e Nove m b e r 2

spe cia l e le cti on viol ate s th e Con stit ution

, Se na tor Burr is give s

no in dic atio n about wh ich pr ovis ion s of th e Con stit ution he is

r e l y in g on or how hi s e xclusi on ha s cause d th e viol atio n. We

h a v e r e p e a t e d l y r e m i n d e d lit igan ts, e spe cia lly th o s e

r e p r e se nt e d by coun se l, th at compl ian ce wi th Rule o f Appe lla te Pr oce dure 28 r e qui r e s mor e th an “a ge ne r ali ze d

asse r tion of e r r or .” Ander son v. Ha rdm an , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7t h

Cir

. 2001 ); se e also Ha xhi u v. Muk ase y , 519 F.3d 6 8 5

, 6 9 1 (7t h

Cir

. 2008 )

. Se na tor Burr is’ s cla im th at he ha s be e n

unc ons tituti ona lly de ni e d acc e ss to th e ba l l o t l e ave s us wi th

ve r y li ttle to e val uate

.

For th e sake of comple te ne ss, how e ve r , we obse r ve th at th e Supre me Cour t ha s e xplai n e d t h at th e e ff e ct of bal lot acc e ss

r e str ict ion s on can didat e s alw ays ha s a cor r e lati ve e ff e ct on th e fi e ld of can didat e s amon g wh om v o t e r s migh t ch oose

. Ander son , 460 U. S. at 786. Wh e n a n a lyzi ng can didat e

r e s t r ict ion s, we ar e “‘t o e xamin e in a r e ali stic lig ht th e e xte n t

an d na tur e of th e ir impa ct on vote r s.’ ” Id. (q uotin g Bull ock v.14 No. 10- 2836

Cart er , 405 U. S. 133, 143 (19 72) ). For e xample

, r e str ict ion s pose

a pr oble m if th e y ke e p polit ica l par tie s off th e bal lot, Wi ll ia ms , 393 U. S. at 31, in te r fe r e wi th polit ica l e xpre ssion

, Il li noi s Ele cti ons Bd. v . Soci al is t W ork ers Par ty , 440 U .S. 17 3, 18 6 ( 1979 ),

or for ce in dige nt can didat e s to p ay fe e s th e y can not aff or d,

Lub in v . Pan is h , 415 U .S. 70 9, 71 8 ( 1974 ).

At th e same time

, how e ve r , can dida c y itse lf is not a fun dame nt al ri gh t, and the Cour t has he ld “tha t the e xiste nc e of bar r ie r s to a can didat e ’s acc e ss to th e bal lot ‘doe s not of itse lf

compe l clos e scr utin y.’” Cle me nts v. Fas hin g , 457 U. S. 957, 963 (19 82) (q uotin g Bull ock

, 405 U .S. at 143) . “[ N]ot a ll r e str ict ion s impose d

. . . on can didat e s’ e lig i b i l i t y for th e bal lot impose

con stit ution all y-s uspe ct bur de ns on vote r s’ r igh ts to assoc iate

o r to ch oose amon g can didat e s.

. . . ‘[ A] s a pr acti cal ma t t e r , th e r e must be a substa nt ial r e gulati on of e le cti ons if th e y ar e to
be fai r an d hon e st an d if some sor t of or de r , r ath e r th an ch aos, is to acc ompan y th e de mocr atic pr oce ss.’ ” Ander son v. Cel eb rez ze , 460 U. S. 780, 788 (19 83) (q uotin g Sto rer v. Bro wn , 415

U. S. 724, 730 (19 74) ). In th is case , tw o con side r atio ns le ad us to
th e con clusi on th at th e dist r ict cour t’s or de r doe s not r un afoul

of t h e C ourt ’s guidan ce on bal lot- acc e ss r e str ict ion s. Fir st,

not hi ng in th e pe r man e nt in jun cti on e xclude s a par tic ular cla ss

o r g r oup of can didat e s in a man ne r th at sugge sts th at a n ide nt if iab le gr oup of vote r s wi ll be le f t o ut of th e spe cia l

e le cti on. Se con d, an d mo r e impor tan tly, th e dist r ict cour t’s

or de r is na r r owl y tail or e d to addr e ss onl y one occa sion ; it wi ll

ha ve n o e ff e ct on futur e e le cti ons in Ill in ois.

As we ha ve alr e ady not e d, th e dist r ict cour t dr e w on a

pr oce dure use d in th is cir cuit aft e r Ja ckso n v. Og il vie

, 426 F.2d

1 3 3 3 ( 7th Cir

. 1970 ), to de fi ne th e me ch an ics of th e spe cia l

e le cti on r e qui r e d by th e Con stit ution

. Se na tor Burr is atte mpts

to de r ive a con s t i tution al viol atio n fr om th e dist r ict cour t’s

e ff or t to bal an ce a con stit ution al r e qui r e me nt

, state e le c t i o n law

, an d th e ne e d to supply a r e me dy i n a n e xpe diti ous fas hi on. But f ar fr om be in g an addit ion al con stit ution al e r r or , th e dist r ict c o ur t ’ s e ff or t did not hi ng mor e or le ss th an vin dic ate con stit ution al r igh ts in lig ht of th e r e al- wor d

con se que nc e s of th e ne ce ssar y r e lie f. Se e We inb erg er v. Rom ero

-No. 10- 2836 15

Bar celo

, 456 U. S. 305, 312 (19 82)

. The dist r ict cour t h ad

disc r e tion to lim it th e spe cia l e le cti on par ti c ipan ts to na me s alr e ady on th e ge ne r al e le c t i o n b all ot in or de r to avoi d oth e r

pr oble ms, both con stit ution al an d pr acti cal

, t h a t migh t ha ve

ar ise n if th e s p e c i a l e le cti on we r e le ft wi de ope n. Cf. Na der v. Kei th , 385 F.3d 729 (7t h Cir . 2004) (appr ovin g a dist r ict cour t’s

r e fusal to en te r an in

jun cti on th at woul d ha ve in te r fe r e d with

an alr e ady- sch e dule d e le cti on)

. Fin all y, th e dist r i ct cour t’s

r e me dy, wh ich r e lie s on can dida te s se le cte d purs uant to th e Ill in ois Ele cti on Code

, wa s de sign e d to be

, an d pr obab ly is, th e

most de mocr atic an d con stit ution all y soun d a p pr oach th e dist r ict cour t coul d h ave de vis e d.

III

Se na tor Burr is ha s aske d us to vac ate th e dist r ict cour t’s

pe r man e nt in

jun cti on on th e gr ound th at it is t he job of th e Ill in ois l e gisl atur e , n ot the fe de r al cour ts, to e stab lis h e le cti on

pr oce dure s th at e ns ure th at th e se at onc e he ld by Pr e side nt
Obam a in th e U. S. Se na te is fi lle d in a man ne r th at compl ie s wi th th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt

. Putt in g to one side th e fac t
th at th e plai nt if fs br ought suit to compe l Gove r nor Quin n an d

oth e r s to act wh e n th e y r e fuse d to do so, Se na tor Burr is now

con ce de s th at th e con se que n c e of gr an tin g hi m th e r e lie f he

se e ks is th at no spe cia l e le cti on wi ll take plac e at all in lig ht of

th e compl e xity of th e admi ni str a t i v e ste ps ne e de d to pr e par e f o r th e e le cti on. H e says th is is nor mal, poin tin g to o ur obse r vati on in Jud ge I th at n e a r ly 15% of th e almo st 200

vac an cie s in th e last ce nt ury ha ve be e n fil e d with out a vote of

th e pe ople

. But th is stati sti c pr ovide s no suppor t for Se na tor

Burr is’ s positi on. To th e con tr ar y , it d e mon str ate s th at too ofte n th e r e qui r e me nt s of th e Se ve nt e e nt h Am e nd me nt ha ve b e e n ign or e d. We ll- e stab lis he d pr in cipl e s of e qui ty r e qui r e cour ts to

con side r , amon g o th er fa ct or s, th e bal an ce of ha r dsh ip be tw e e n plai nt if f an d de fe nd an t an d th e e ff e ct th at th e in jun cti on woul d

ha ve on th e publi c be for e gr an tin g e qui tabl e r e lie f. eBa y Inc. v. Me rcExcha nge, L.L.C. , 547 U .S. 38 8, 39 1 (20 06)

. In th is c ase , th e bal an ce of ha r dsh ips fav or s th e plai nt if fs, wh o – alon g wi th th e

r e st of th e cit ize ns of Ill i n o i s – wi ll se e th e ir Se ve nt e e nt h

Am e nd me nt r igh ts vin dic ate d in a spe cia l e le cti on. For Se na tor16 No. 10- 2836

Burr is, it me an s onl y th at he wi ll f i n i sh hi s te mpor ar y appoin tme nt in th e Se na te tw o mon th s e a r lie r th an he may ha ve e xpe cte d. In an e xce e din gly shor t time

, th e dist r ict cour t

con side r e d th e ar gume nt s of all side s, for ge d agr e e me nt
be tw e e n th e par tie s, an d r e ach e d a soluti on to br in g th e Ill in ois

e le cti on mach in e r y in to lin e wi th th e fe de r al Con stit ution

. The

dist r ict cour t is to be con gr atula te d for th e fi ne job it did, unde r

e xtre me tim e pr e ssur e , in r e solv in g th is c ase

.

The dist r ict cour t’s or de r is A F F I R M E D

.