CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 1

Equal Provision of Early Voting in Cook County 

Gustafson v. Illinois State Board of Elections 

(David H. Coar, N.D. Ill. 1:06-cv-1159) 

A federal complaint charged a city and its county with unequal provision of early voting. The district judge found that the inconsistencies among the jurisdictions were not so serious as to merit federalcourt intervention. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting Topics: Early voting; poll 

locations; primary election. 

Eleven voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on 

March 3, 2006, charging Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago with 

unequal provision of early voting for the March 21 primary elections.1 With 

their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

 The plaintiffs also filed a notice that their 

motion would be heard by Judge David H. Coar at 9:00 a.m. on March 6.3

At the hearing, Judge Coar asked the parties to take an additional two 

days to try to resolve their differences.4 On March 8, he continued the hearing for another day.5

 On March 9, he denied the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order.6

I’m going to—I want everybody to understand the basis for the opinion. 

I’m going to impose a sliding scale here. As Mr. Scanlon noted, we’re not 

talking about ultimately the right to vote. We’re talking about the right to 

vote early. I don’t believe—as I’ve said, I don’t believe that mere inconvenience can never constitute a constitutional violation. I can hypothesize a set 

of facts where inconvenience could rise to a constitutional dimension. I 

don’t think that’s what we have here.7

The parties were able to come to some agreement on modifications to the 

locations of early voting sites and their hours of operation, but the plaintiffs 

continued to seek additional judicial relief.8

1. Complaint, Gustafson v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 

2006), D.E. 1; see Suit Charges Early-Voting Sites Are Unfair, Chi. Trib., Mar. 4, 2006, at 11. 

2. Motion, Gustafson, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2006), D.E. 5. 

3. Notice, id. (Mar. 6, 2006), D.E. 6. 

Judge Coar retired on December 31, 2010. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Transcript at 22–23, id. (Mar. 6, 2006, filed Mar. 17, 2006), D.E. 49 [hereinafter Mar. 6, 

2006, Transcript]; Minutes, id. (Mar. 6, 2006), D.E. 11; see Mar. 6, 2006, Transcript, supra, at 

4 (“I don’t think this is a situation where there truly is an emergency.”). 

5. Minutes, Gustafson, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006), D.E. 44. 

6. Minutes, id. (Mar. 9, 2006), D.E. 45; see Claypool Backers Lose Bid for More Early Voting Sites, Chi. Trib., Mar. 10, 2006, at 3. 

7. Transcript at 162, Gustafson, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2006, filed Sept. 29, 

2006), D.E. 79-2 [hereinafter Mar. 9, 2006, Transcript]. 

8. Status Report, id. (Mar. 10, 2006), D.E. 46; see Mar. 9, 2006, Transcript, supra note 7, 

at 100–03 (discussion of agreements between the plaintiffs and several jurisdictions); Tran-
Equal Provision of Early Voting in Cook County 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 

Reviewing a second amended complaint,9 Judge Coar granted the defendants summary judgment on September 30, 2007: 

There is no doubt that there are some differences in the manner in 

which [early voting] is being applied in different districts. At this point, 

however, Plaintiffs have advanced insufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that the inconsistencies from one jurisdiction 

to the next are so great that the Federal judiciary must intervene and force 

the state Board to reconsider how it applies duly considered state election 

law.10

script at 6–18, Gustafson, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006, filed Sept. 29, 2006), D.E. 

79-1 (same). 

9. Second Amended Complaint, Gustafson, No. 1:06-cv-1159 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2006), 

D.E. 84; see Amended Complaint, id. (July 20, 2006), D.E. 61. 

10. Opinion at 23–24, id. (Sept. 30, 2007), D.E. 117, 2007 WL 2892667.