Supplemental study materials below:
Response of 7th circuit court of appeals (Aug. 26) and Madison election statistics in 2016.
On August 26, 2016, the 7th circuit court of appeals, en banc, responded to the emergency appeals by parties to the two voter ID cases.
Read the entire response here. (four pages)
The last two paragraphs:
Given the State’s representation that “initiation” of the IDPP means only that the voter must show up at a DMV with as much as he or she has, and that the State will not refuse to recognize the “initiation” of the process because a birth certificate, proof of citizenship, Social Security card, or other particular document is missing, we conclude that the urgency needed to justify an initial en banc hearing has not been shown. Our conclusion depends also on the State’s compliance with the district court’s second criterion, namely, that the State adequately inform the general public that those who enter the IDPP will promptly receive a credential for voting, unless it is plain that they are not qualified. The Western District has the authority to monitor compliance with its injunction, and we trust that it will do so conscientiously between now and the November 2016 election.
On these understandings, the petitions for initial hearing en banc are DENIED.
This means that those who apply to the DMV through the ID petition process because they lack appropriate documentation will do so under the current regulations for the November election. The DMV credential they will receive will be valid for voting for only 60 days. It will be automatically renewed twice as long as the petitioner continues to provide the DMV with an accurate mailing address.
The appeals of each case will be heard, but likely well after the November election.
Statistics from 2016 elections in City of Madison
On April 5, 123 registered voters cast a provisional ballot because they did not have appropriate ID with them. 41 of these voters provided ID by Friday 4/8 and had their votes counted.
On August 9, 29 registered voters cast a provisional ballot because they did not have appropriate ID with them. 10 of those voters provided ID by Friday 8/12 and had their votes counted.
At some polling places, workers kept track of individuals who did not have acceptable voter photo ID but did not cast a provisional ballot.
- April 5: 40 individuals without acceptable ID did not cast a provisional ballot
- August 9: 26 individuals without acceptable ID did not cast a provisional ballot
At some polling places, workers kept track of individuals who could not register to vote because they did not have acceptable proof of residence (POR) with them.
- April 5: 99 individuals could not register to vote because they did not have acceptable POR with them
- August 9: 22 individuals could not register to vote because they did not have acceptable POR with them
The City Clerk’s Office tracks the number of absentee ballot requests that cannot be filled because the voter does not respond to requests for a copy of voter ID.
- April 5: 242 absentee ballots could not be issued
- August 9: 89 absentee ballots could not be issued