Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin GOP Early-Voting Law

MADISON, WI -- Lame-duck legislation that put limits on Wisconsin early voting rights was found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge on Thursday afternoon.

The legislation, which was hurriedly passed by Republican state legislators during former Gov. Scott Walker's final days in office, sought to limit the early-voting window to 14 days.

One Wisconsin Institute and the Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund filed the motion in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asking Judge James Peterson to enforce his rulings from July 2016 which tossed out legislation by Republicans on the basis that it was both unconstitutional and racially motivated.

"Robin Vos and the Republicans have been told by the federal court in no uncertain terms that they are not above the law,” said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director in a statement Thursday. “The Republican attacks on voting rights were unconstitutional when they were passed, they were unconstitutional when the judge struck them down and they are unconstitutional now.”

The five-page ruling by Judge Peterson rejects arguments made by the Republicans in support of their latest attempt to restrict early voting in Wisconsin.

“Today’s court ruling is a victory for the citizens of Wisconsin and a rebuke to their defeated former governor and his cronies in the state legislature,” said Eric H. Holder, Jr., 82nd Attorney General of the United States in a statement. “Every voter in the state should be asking one question: why are Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature so afraid of the people they claim they want to represent? Though we are heartened by this decision we will continue to fight any further efforts designed to undermine democracy in Wisconsin or any other part of our nation.”

In the ruling, Judge Peterson wrote:

“This is not a close question: the three challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with the injunctions that the court has issued in this case.” “A party cannot avoid an injunction by complying with parts of it while disregarding others.” On limiting early voting hours: “This argument ignores the fact that the court concluded that each restriction was independently unlawful and enjoined them separately.” “If the court accepted defendants’ argument, it would mean that a legislative body could evade an injunction simply by reenacting an identical law and giving it a new number.” “Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.”

Below is the order issued by Judge Peterson on Thursday:

Patch File Photo by Scott Anderson