老澳门开奖结果 Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Appeals Panel Ruling on Wisconsin Voter ID Law
October 8, 2014 12:00 am
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Monday's ruling from a Seventh Circuit appeals panel that concluded Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional and does not violate the Voting Rights Act.
The following is a statement from Dale Ho, director of the 老澳门开奖结果's Voting Rights Project:
"Permitting this law to go into effect so close to the election is fueling voter confusion and election chaos in Wisconsin, particularly for the many voters who have already cast their ballots. Voters deserve a fair shake, but this last-minute disruption changes the rules of the game in an election that is already underway, and risks locking out thousands of voters. The stakes are extremely high."
The motion filed today also notes factual inaccuracies in the appeals panel's ruling, including:
- "The Seventh Circuit also could not fathom that so many registered Wisconsin voters lack a photo ID 'in a world in which photo ID is essential to board an airplane, . . . pick up a prescription at a pharmacy, open a bank account or cash a check at a currency exchange, buy a gun, or enter a courthouse to serve as a juror or watch the argument of this appeal.' Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Wisconsin fliers, patients, bank customers, gun owners, and court watchers do not need photo IDs. Only Wisconsin voters."
- "The panel inexplicably stated that key voter witnesses 'did not testify that they had tried to get [a copy of their birth certificate], let alone that they had tried but failed.' But numerous witnesses testified that they tried and failed to get a birth certificate so they could get a voter ID."
The 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Wisconsin, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and Dechert LLP are co-counsel in this case, Frank v. Walker.
Wisconsin
Dec 2016
Voting Rights
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin鈥檚 voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Explore case
Wisconsin
Dec 2016
Voting Rights
Frank v. Walker: Fighting Voter Suppression in Wisconsin
Wisconsin鈥檚 voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country and requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote. This restriction imposes a substantial burden on the right to vote by requiring photo identification that many voters do not have, and that many voters cannot easily obtain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Wisconsin voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices that have a negative impact on racial and language minorities. The law has a disproportionate impact on black and Latino voters, who are twice as likely to lack photo ID accepted for voting in Wisconsin compared to white voters.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The 老澳门开奖结果 breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act鈥檚 protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County鈥檚 legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona v. Richer老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot 鈥渃ure鈥� deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. 鈥� On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, 老澳门开奖结果, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York 老澳门开奖结果, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: 鈥淭he NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. 鈥淭he Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. 鈥淭o put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination 鈥� and in doing so protects New Yorkers鈥� most fundamental right. 鈥淣ew York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.鈥�