The Wisconsin Department of Justice asked the U.S Supreme Court Monday to refrain from taking up a challenge to the state’s voter ID law.
While the law has survived numerous legal challenges, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt its implementation in advance of the November 2014 primary elections.
State Attorney General Brad Schimel argued in the brief the law does not place an undue burden on the minority of the population who do not have the requisite ID and that it upholds the integrity of the election process.
“In Wisconsin, as everywhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Schimel said in the brief. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”
The high court upheld a similar law in Indiana in 2008, a fact which the DOJ used as justification for requesting the Wisconsin law be upheld.
“The Seventh Circuit correctly found that Wisconsin’s law is constitutional because it is materially the same as the law that this Court upheld in [Indiana],” the state’s request said.
The filing of the brief shouldn’t come as a surprise and likely will not substantially influence the Supreme Court, according to UW-Madison Political Science professor Barry Burden.
“The Supreme Court doesn’t need any additional materials at this point,” Burden said. “The attorney general did what he had to do but they had all the materials they needed from the previous federal cases.”
Plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case have argued the law disenfranchises too many Wisconsinites, citing a federal court ruling estimating up to 9 percent of all registered voters lack the necessary ID to vote under the law.
Because of this argument, Burden believes there are substantial differences between the Wisconsin and Indiana cases, although he acknowledges it is difficult to predict whether the justices will decide to hear the case.
“Wisconsin’s case is different,” Burden said. “It’s a Voting Rights Act case about whether racial or ethnic groups are affected by the law. Here there is a pretty big evidentiary record to look at because it has been put on the ground.”
