Voting Rights

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Ruthelle Frank, et al v. Scott Walker

Case No.: 15-3582

Officials: EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges

Focus: Voting Rights

Apellants seek relief for voting right inhibitions

“There are two problems with the state’s position, one factual and the other legal. The factual problem is that the sort of argument plaintiffs now present would not have justified affirmance: recall that the injunction forbade the state to require any voter to present photo ID. The predicament of people who cannot get acceptable photo ID with reasonable effort would not have supported the sweeping injunction the district court entered. The legal problem is that the ability to make an alternative argument in defense of the district court’s judgment is a privilege, not an obligation. Transamerica Insurance Co. v. South, 125 F.3d 392, 399 (7th Cir. 1997); Schering Corp. v. Illinois Antibiotics Co., 89 F.3d 357, 358 (7th Cir. 1996). “[F]orcing appellees to put forth every conceivable alternative ground for affirmance might increase the complexity and scope of appeals more than it would streamline the progress of the litigation.” Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488, 489–90 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1995). A theory left open in both the district court and the court of appeals remains open in the district court.”

Affirmed in Part

Vacated in Part

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.