Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DNC V Bostlemann

    Uploaded by

    Ian Millhiser
    4K views4 pages
    Dnc v Bostlemann

    Original Title

    Dnc v Bostlemann

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dnc v Bostlemann

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4K views4 pages

    DNC V Bostlemann

    Uploaded by

    Ian Millhiser
    Dnc v Bostlemann

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    Case: 20-1538 Document: 30 Filed: 04/03/2020 Pages: 4

    United States Court of Appeals


    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604

    April 3, 2020

    By the Court:

    DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ] Appeals from the United


    et al., ] States District Court for
    Plaintiffs-Appellees, ] the Western District of
    ] Wisconsin.
    Nos. 20-1538 & 20-1546 v. ]
    ] Nos. 3:20-cv-00249-wmc,
    MARGE BOSTELMANN, et al., ] 3:20-cv-00278-wmc,&
    Defendants ] 3:20-cv-00284-wmc
    ]
    and ] William M. Conley,
    ] Judge.
    REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ]
    et al., ]
    Defendants-Appellants, ]
    ------------------------------------]
    DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ]
    et al., ]
    Plaintiffs-Appellees, ]
    ]
    Nos. 20-1539 & 20-1545 v. ]
    ]
    MARGE BOSTELMANN, et al., ]
    Defendants, ]
    ]
    APPEAL OF: WISCONSIN STATE ]
    LEGISLATURE ]
    ]

    The following are before the court:

    1. WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY


    THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR AN
    ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, filed on April 2, 2020, by counsel.

    2. EMERGENCY MOTION OF REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE


    AND REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WISCONSIN FOR
    Case: 20-1538 Document: 30 Filed: 04/03/2020 Pages: 4

    Nos. 20-1538, 20-1539, 20-1545 & 20-1546 Page 2

    ADMINISTRATIVE STAY AND STAY PENDING APPEAL, filed on


    April 2, 2020, by counsel.

    3. GEAR PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR-


    DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
    STAY AND STAY PENDING APPEAL, filed on April 3, 2020, by
    counsel.

    4. LEWIS PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO STAY, filed on


    April 3, 2020, by counsel.

    5. OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES DEMOCRATIC


    NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF
    WISCONSIN TO MOTIONS TO STAY THE PRELIMINARY
    INJUNCTION AND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY IN
    NOS. 20-1538 AND 20-1539, filed on April 3, 2020, by counsel.

    6. REPLY OF WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE IN SUPPORT OF


    EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    AND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, filed on April 3, 2020, by
    counsel.

    The court is in receipt of these emergency appeals, which have been referred to a
    three-judge panel.

    The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin,


    individual voters, and various community groups (collectively, “plaintiffs”) brought
    these three consolidated cases against Wisconsin election officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
    § 1983 challenging various aspects of the state’s primary election scheduled for
    April 7, 2020. They alleged that in light of shelter-in-place orders issued by the governor
    due to the COVID-19 crisis, voters will rely very heavily on absentee voting, and in their
    view, certain provisions of Wisconsin law governing absentee voting pose severe
    obstacles to some voters that unduly burdens their right to vote. Among other relief,
    they sought injunctive relief in the form of an extension of the electronic registration
    deadline; a suspension of the requirement for documentation and/or photo
    identification; a suspension of the requirement that each absentee ballot be signed by a
    witness. The Wisconsin State Legislature sought to intervene in the case, but the district
    Case: 20-1538 Document: 30 Filed: 04/03/2020 Pages: 4

    Nos. 20-1538, 20-1539, 20-1545 & 20-1546 Page 3

    court denied this request. On April 2, 2020, following a hearing, the district court issued
    a lengthy order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive
    relief. The court subsequently made two minor amendments to the order. The
    Wisconsin State Legislature filed an emergency notice of appeal of the order denying
    intervention, and the Republican National Committee, which was permitted to
    intervene below, filed an emergency notice of appeal of the court’s preliminary
    injunction order. They both seek a stay of the court’s order. Notably, no aspect of theses
    appeals challenge the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin live
    voting on April 7. Upon review of the parties’ filings,

    IT IS ORDERED that the motions for a stay are DENIED as to the portions of
    the district court’s order that (1) enjoin the enforcement of the requirement under Wis.
    Stat. § 6.87(6) that absentee ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day to be
    counted and extend the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots to 4:00 p.m. on
    April 13, 2020; and (2) enjoin the enforcement of the requirement under Wis. Stat. §
    6.86(1)(b) that absentee ballot requests must be received by April 2, 2020, and extend the
    deadline for receipt of absentee ballot requests by mail, fax or email (and if deemed
    administratively feasible in the sole discretion of the WEC Administrator, online) to 5:00
    p.m. on April 3, 2020.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for a stay are GRANTED as to


    that portion of the district court’s order that enjoins the enforcement of Wis. Stat. §
    6.87(2) for absentee voters who provide a written affirmation or other statement that
    they were unable to safely obtain a witness certification despite reasonable efforts to do
    so. The court concludes that the district court did not give adequate consideration to the
    state’s interests in suspending this requirement. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434
    (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128,
    1130 (7th Cir. 2004). “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to
    the functioning of our participatory democracy,” and “[v]oter fraud drives honest
    citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government.” Purcell v.
    Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). The court is also cognizant of the Supreme Court’s
    admonition that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections . . . can themselves result in voter
    confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election
    draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 4-5. This court is concerned with the
    overbreadth of the district court’s order, which categorically eliminates the witness
    requirement applicable to absentee ballots and gives no effect to the state’s substantial
    interest in combatting voter fraud. Griffin, 385 F.3d at 1130.
    Case: 20-1538 Document: 30 Filed: 04/03/2020 Pages: 4

    Nos. 20-1538, 20-1539, 20-1545 & 20-1546 Page 4

    On March 29, 2020, the Wisconsin Election Commission issued Absentee Witness
    Signature Requirement Guidance that contained suggested options for allowing
    absentee voters to meet the state’s signature requirement. The guidance is available on
    the Commission’s website at https://elections.wi.gov/index.php/node/6790. The
    guidance came out of a meeting the Commission held on March 27, 2020, and contains
    at least five concrete alternative suggestions for how voters can comply with the state’s
    witness and signature requirements in light of the extraordinary challenges presented
    by the COVID-19 crisis. With the absentee ballot receipt date being extended to April
    13, 2020, voters have more time to take advantage of one or another of the
    Commission’s suggestions for obtaining a signature. So, too, do we have every reason to
    believe the Commission, in keeping with the forward-leaning action it has taken thus
    far to accommodate voters’ interests while also striving to ensure their safety, will
    continue to consider yet other ways for voters to satisfy the statutory signature
    requirement (if possible, for example, by maintaining the statutory presence
    requirement but not requiring the witness’s physical signature). It is best to leave these
    decisions and any more particular prescriptions to the Commission, as it is better
    positioned to know what additional alternative suggestions are able to accommodate
    the many intersecting interests in play in the present circumstances.

    IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the court concludes that the Wisconsin State
    Legislature has standing to pursue this appeal, and that the district court erred in
    refusing to permit the Legislature to intervene in the case below. Virginia House of
    Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945 (2019); Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v.
    Kaul, 942 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2019).

    You might also like