Here & Now

Liberal Group Sues Over Early Voting Changes

Frederica Freyberg:
In our first look tonight, one of the Wisconsin legislature’s lame duck session bills is already facing legal action. This week, liberal groups with assist from former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s foundation filed a motion in federal court asking a judge to enforce his earlier order concerning early voting and voter ID provisions.
Under the bill, as passed and signed into law by Governor Scott Walker, early voting in Wisconsin could only take place 14 days ahead of elections. Instead of allowing local governments to offer as much early voting as they choose. In the 2018 election that swept in a Democratic governor and attorney general, Milwaukee allowed early voting 44 days prior to the election and more than 93,000 people there voted during that time. Likewise, Madison offered 33 days of early voting, and more than 87,000 people voted then. Republicans say the limits on early voting are designed to even the playing field with smaller municipalities, which are not as able to host multiple weeks of early voting. Here’s how Republican leaders explained the new limits and why they pass legal muster, this time.

Robin Vos:
You can do it on the weekend. You can do it 24/7. You can do it at as many polling places as you want. If the city of Madison wants to have a thousand polling places for those two weeks, they have every right it to do that. That is totally different than the first proposal we passed, which was more restrictive. We wanted to listen once again to what Judge Peterson said but also do something that does not disadvantage rural areas that don’t have the resources that a Madison or Milwaukee does.

John Nygren:
I can tell you as somebody who represents a more rural part of the state, having an equal playing field once again where my constituents have the same opportunity as constituents in more populated communities, we do believe that’s a fairness issue.

Frederica Freyberg:
One Wisconsin Institute filed the motion with the federal court this week. Analiese Eicher is program director with One Wisconsin Now. And thanks very much for joining us.

Analiese Eicher:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So as we heard, Republicans believe this is a fairness issue. What is your response to that?

Analiese Eicher:
That’s a great question. I know it’s something that’s been raised by the Republicans since we first started talking about the expansion of early voting in Wisconsin. And, you know, we got an email earlier this week from a woman who was a clerk in a town of about 800 people in northern Wisconsin. And she was emailing to say that having early voting, having multiple weeks, multiple days, multiple locations, allows her to best serve the people in her town, to best allow them to early-vote. So this is a fairness issue, you know, for small towns of 800 people to places like Milwaukee, where you have over 500,000 people, to places in the middle of Wisconsin who are, you know, 10, 12,000 people. The fairness issue is, can they fairly and properly serve their constituents and serve voters in communities with early voting.

Frederica Freyberg:
In striking down early voting limits in 2016, the federal judge, James Peterson, wrote this. He said: Stifling votes for partisan gain is not a valid interest. And rather than expanding in-person absentee voting in smaller municipalities, the state limited in-person absentee voting in larger municipalities. Do you believe that is what is happening again in this latest lame duck legislation that has now been signed into law?

Analiese Eicher:
This is exactly what’s happening again. You know, what was ruled unconstitutional in 2016 remains unconstitutional today. We’ve done the math. The six weeks that some communities had in 2018 for early voting is longer than the two weeks that is proposed in the lame duck legislation. And so it remains unconstitutional. It’s limiting access to early voting. If they were really concerned about making sure that folks had access to voting, you know, like you said in Peterson’s ruling, you know, they would have made it easier for all communities to meet the needs of their voters.

Frederica Freyberg:
So unconstitutional because it violates the Voting Rights Act and how does do that?

Analiese Eicher:
Well, I’m not an attorney, but the Voting Rights Act is something that provides for voting in not just Wisconsin but our country that is one vote, you know, per person and it prevents the discrimination on the basis of race. What Judge Peterson found in our case was that restriction of early voting in — across Wisconsin, was actually intended and discriminated on the basis of race because it limited the ability of voters, people of color, other particular classes of people who might not vote for Republicans, it limited their ability to access voting early.

Frederica Freyberg:
What kind of reaction has your group and others that work with you, gotten from Wisconsin when those people, voters potentially, learned of this new legislation?

Analiese Eicher:
Voters were upset. You know, we’ve gotten a number of contacts since the rumors started, that they were looking to limit early voting, and then actually went through with it during the extraordinary lame duck session. People are concerned. Voting — early voting is popular in Wisconsin. Early voting is legal in Wisconsin. You know, the number of voters who utilized it this last year was over 560,000 voters. That’s a record. Record early voting turnout. So, you know, voters are concerned about it. They want voting — the early voting access to remain as it is, so that each community can do it in a way that serves its voters and serves its community.

Frederica Freyberg:
I know just a bit ago, you said you weren’t a lawyer, but what do you think about Speaker Vos pointing out that this new legislation does not limit kind of time of day or locations as the legislation that was struck down by the judge in 2016 had done? So he believes that this new law restricting early voting passes legal muster.

Analiese Eicher:
Well, again, not a lawyer but, you know, it’s hard to see that argument and that point of view because two weeks is two weeks, you know? It’s the same two weeks that they cut early voting down to previously. And it was ruled unconstitutional before, and it remains unconstitutional today.

Frederica Freyberg:
How do you believe that the new laws that emanated from the lame duck session violates the judge’s earlier order concerning voter ID? Because there’s a portion of that in there as well.

Analiese Eicher:
So in the 2016 case, there were a number of concerns raised about the ID petition process, which is the process that people use to get their free ID for voting. And what Judge Peterson ruled in our case was that the voters who needed this free, who were going through this specific process, would be issued a receipt that would allow them to vote. Judge Peterson said that that receipt has to be valid for 180 days. What the law — or the language that was codified into law during the extraordinary lame duck session limited that to 60 days. And so that is, again, in violation of, you know, Judge Peterson’s order from 2016, and we’re simply asking, you know, him to enforce his 2016 order to restore that to the 180 days.

Frederica Freyberg:
And very briefly, when do you expect him to rule on this?

Analiese Eicher:
We are expecting some action and next steps in early January of 2019.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Analiese Eicher, thank you very much.

Analiese Eicher:
Thank you for having me.