Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Wisconsinvoterid



Page 1: Wisconsinvoterid


Number of Pages:90

Date Created:April 29, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:May 05, 2014

Tags:Voter ID, Voter Fraud, Supreme Court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

RUTHELLE FRANK, al., behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-CV-01128 
SCOTT WALKER, his official capacity Governor the State Wisconsin, al., Defendants. 
JUDGE DAVID DEININGER, al., Defendants. 
DECISION AND ORDER May 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature passed 2011 Wisconsin Act (Act 23), which requires Wisconsin residents present document including photo identification (photo ID) order vote. 2011 Wis. Sess. Laws 104 (codified amended scattered 
sections Wis. Stat. Ch. and 6). The plaintiffs the two cases captioned above claimthe law violates the Fourteenth Amendment and/or Section the Voting Rights Act, 
U.S.C.  1973. Act 23's photo requirement was effect only the February 2012 election. March 2012, two separate Wisconsin circuit courts enjoined the statute state constitutional grounds. the date this decision, one the injunctions remains effect and both cases are pending the Wisconsin Supreme Court. the Frank case, individuals who are eligible vote Wisconsin contend that Act violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and Section the Voting Rights Act. the 
LULAC case, four organizations argue that Act violates Section the Voting Rights 
Act. With the agreement the parties, handled the cases together without formally 
consolidating them and, November 2013, conducted two week trial the court. this 
decision, which constitutes findings and conclusions under Federal Rule Civil 
Procedure 52, address the major issues presented. effort make the opinion 
readable possible, have placed several relatively technical discussions expert 
testimony appendices rather than the text. 
Before proceeding, note that only addressing two the plaintiffs claimsthe Frank plaintiffs claim that Act places unjustified burden the right vote and the claim both the Frank and LULAC plaintiffs that Act violates Section the Voting Rights Act. not address the Frank plaintiffs remaining claims, which are all constitutional claims. reason for not addressing the remaining claims based the longstanding principle judicial restraint under which courts are avoid reaching constitutional questions advance the necessity deciding them. Camreta Greene, U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 2031 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). explained below, all the plaintiffs are entitled permanent injunctive relief against enforcement the photo requirement the ground that the requirement violates Section the Voting Rights Act. This makes consideration any the Frank plaintiffs constitutional claims unnecessary. Still, believe wise consider the constitutional claim whether Act places unjustified burden the right vote. analysis below will demonstrate, the Section statutory claim and the unjustified-burden constitutional claim 
overlap substantially, that many factual findings are relevant both claims. Indeed, the 
Section analysis largely identical the unjustified-burden analysis, except that the Section analysis involves the additional question whether Act has disproportionate
impact Blacks and Latinos and produces discriminatory result. Thus, would likelynot wise use judicial resources address the Section claim but leave the unjustified-burden claim unresolved. Addressing only the former claim could result appeal and then remand this court for consideration the constitutional claim, and then second appeal involving only the constitutional claim. course, not addressing all constitutional claims, leaving the door open successive appeals. But unlike the unjustified-burden constitutional claim, the remaining constitutional claims not overlap substantially with the Section claim and could more easily addressed separate proceedings. analysis proceeds follows. First, give overview the relevant provisions Act 23. Second, address the Frank plaintiffs claim that Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment because imposes substantial burdens the many eligible voters who not currently possess photo IDs, and because such burdens are not justified the state interests that Act purports serve. Third, address the plaintiffs claim that Act violates Section the Voting Rights Act because has disproportionate impact the voting rights Blacks and Latinos. Finally, briefly address some remaining procedural Because the Section and unjustified-burden analyses are highly similar, with the Section analysis presenting additional questions that the unjustified-burden analysis does not, discuss the unjustified-burden claim first. 
matters, namely, the Frank plaintiffs motion for class certification and the defendants 
motion dismiss the claims certain Frank plaintiffs. Overview Act 
Under Act 23, order vote, person must present one nine forms photo prove his her identity. acceptable photo includes one the following that isunexpired that expired after the most recent general election:4 (1) Wisconsin drivers license, (2) Wisconsin state card, (3) card issued United States uniformed service, (4) United States passport. Wis. Stat.  5.02(6m)(a). person may also present: (5) naturalization certificate issued within the last two years, (6) unexpired receipt issued when person applies for Wisconsin drivers license, which valid for days temporary license, (7) unexpired receipt issued when person applies for state card, which valid for days temporary card, (8) unexpired card issued federally recognized Indian tribe Wisconsin (9) unexpired card issued accredited Wisconsin university college that contains the date issuance, the persons signature and expiration date later than two years from the date issuance. Wis. Stat.  5.02(6m)(b)(f). person presents student ID, the person must also produce document showing that she currently enrolled. Wis. Stat.  5.02(6m)(f). qualify vote Wisconsin, person must citizen the United States, older and resident the state for consecutive days prior the election. Wis. Stat.  6.02(1). general election one held in even-numbered years November . Wis. Stat.  5.02(5). 
Act does not allow individual use Veterans Card, the photo that the 
United States Department Veterans Affairs issues when veterans leave the military. Trial Transcript (Tr.) 871. individual also cannot use from one Wisconsins two-year technical colleges. The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), nonpartisan board consisting six retired judges which administers Wisconsin elections, found that technical college IDs which met the requirements set out for student IDs were acceptable, but legislative committee required the GAB promulgate administrative rule the matter. The GAB did so, but both the legislative committee and the Governor must approve the rule and neither has done so. Tr. 87980, 883. 
When voting in-person, individual must state his her name and address and produce one the accepted forms photo ID. The clerk poll worker will then check the poll list determine there registered voter with matching information and inspect the see the name conforms the name the poll list and the photograph reasonably resembles the individual. Wis. Stat.  6.79(2)(a). these requirements are met, the individual will allowed sign the poll book and receive ballot. individual does not have qualifying ID, she may cast provisional ballot. However, such ballot will counted only the individual appears the municipal clerks office with acceptable 4:00 p.m. the Friday after the election. Wis. Stat.  6.79(3)(b), 6.97(3)(b). Individuals requesting absentee ballots must also present photo IDs. Wis. Stat.  6.86(1)(ar), 6.87(1). requester must mail photocopy acceptable photo with his her request. Wis. Stat.  6.87(1). 
The statute provides limited exceptions. The photo requirement does not apply to: (1) absentee voters who have previously supplied acceptable photo IDs and whose 
names and addresses have not changed, Wis. Stat.  6.87(4)(b)3, (2) absentee voters who 
are the military overseas, Wis. Stat.  6.87(1), (3) voters who have confidential listings result domestic abuse, sexual assault stalking, Wis. Stat.  6.79(6), (4) voters who have surrendered their drivers licenses due citation notice intent revoke suspend the license who present copy the citation notice, Wis. Stat.  6.79(7), and 
(5) absentee voters who are elderly, infirm disabled and indefinitely confined their homes certain care facilities, Wis. Stat.  6.86(2), 6.875. Additionally, individual with religious objection being photographed can apply for Wisconsin state card that does not include photo. Wis. Stat.  343.50(4g). 
Individuals who lack qualifying photo can apply for Wisconsin state card the Wisconsin Department Motor Vehicles (DMV). The cost for such card normally $18.00, but Act requires the DMV waive the fee the applicant citizen who will least the date the next election, and the applicant asks that the card issued without charge for voting purposes. Wis. Stat.  343.50(5)(a)3. obtain state card, person must obtain certain primary identification documents and appear DMV service center submit application and photographed. 
II. Fourteenth Amendment Claim: Unjustified Burden the Right Vote 
The Frank plaintiffs are eligible Wisconsin voters who claim that Act 23's photo requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment because imposes unjustified burden their right vote. The Constitution does not expressly provide right vote, but does implicitly. Harper Va. State Bd. Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 66566 (1966); Reynolds Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 55455 (1964); Yick Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) (noting that the right vote a fundamental political right, because preservative all 
rights). Further, the right vote fundamental right protected both the due process 
and equal protection clauses the Fourteenth Amendment. Burdick Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (It beyond cavil that voting the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure. (quoting Ill. Bd. Elections Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979)); Anderson Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983) (the right vote one the liberty interests protected the due process clause); Harper, 383 U.S. 665 ([O]nce the franchise granted the electorate, lines may not drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amendment.). Thus, states may not enact laws that unduly burden the right vote. litmus test, however, neatly separates valid and invalid election laws. Crawford Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 18990 (2008). Rather, the Supreme Court has adopted balancing test that courts must apply case-by-case basis. Id. 
The test adopted the Court recognizes that, as practical matter, there must substantial regulation elections they are fair and honest and some sort order, rather than chaos, accompany the democratic process. Storer Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). further recognizes that election regulation, whether governs the registration and qualification voters the voting process itself, inevitably affectsat least some degreethe individuals right vote and his right associate with others for political ends. Anderson, 460 U.S. 788. Thus, courts applying the balancing test must weigh the character and magnitude the asserted injury the right vote against the precise interests put forward the State justifications for the burden imposed its rule, taking into consideration the extent which those interests make necessary burden the plaintiffs rights. Burdick, 504 U.S. 434 (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. 789). 
The rigor the inquiry into the states interests depends the extent which the 
challenged election law burdens the right vote. Id. Even very slight burdens must justified relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty justify the limitation. Crawford, 553 U.S. 191 (quoting Norman Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 28889 (1992)). Crawford, the Supreme Court considered claim similar that the Frank plaintiffs. The Crawford plaintiffs challenged Indiana statute requiring citizens voting person election day, casting ballot person the office the circuit court clerk prior election day, present photo ID. 553 U.S. 185. majority the Court determined that the plaintiffs had failed prove that the statute was invalid. Although opinion expressed the rationale majority the Court, six Justices agreed that the Anderson/Burdick balancing test applied the plaintiffs claim. See Crawford, 553 U.S. 18991 (opinion Stevens, J.); id. 20408 (opinion Scalia, J.). The opinions differed, however, with respect how the balancing test was applied. Justice Scalias view the test was that law could evaluated only the basis its reasonably foreseeable effect voters generally, rather than its effect subgroups voters. Id. 206 (emphasis original). contrast, Justice Stevens seemed assume that law could invalid based its effect subgroup voters. Id. 20003. Here, however, concluded that the plaintiffs had failed produce record that enabled the Court determine whether the law placed excessive and/or unjustified burden the rights subgroup voters. Id. 200 ([O]n the basis the evidence the record not possible quantify either the magnitude the burden this narrow class voters the portion the burden imposed them that fully justified.). Justice Stevens determined 
that this gap the record left the Court with choice but weigh the states justifications 
for the law against its broad application all Indiana voters. Id. 20203. and the Justices who joined his opinion concluded that because 99% Indianas voting-age population already possessed photo IDs that would allow them comply with the new law, id. 188 n.6, the states general interests the law were sufficient justify the burdens imposed Indiana voters generally. Id. 20203. 
Because Crawford majority the Court agreed that photo requirement such provided Act evaluated under the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, will apply that test here. However, because majority the Court could not agree how apply the test, Crawford not binding precedent that matter. When fragmented Court decides case and single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent five Justices, the holding the Court may viewed that position taken those Members who concurred the judgment the narrowest grounds. Marks United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the opinion authored Justice Stevens the narrowest. Like Justice Scalia, Justice Stevens concluded that the Indiana law was valid because the state interests justified the laws burden all Indiana voters. Crawford, 553 U.S. 20203. But Justice Stevens did not expressly answer the further constitutional question answered Justice Scalia: whether law could invalidated based the burdens imposed subgroup voters. Justice Scalia answered no this question, id. 20408, while Justice Stevens determined only that the plaintiffs had not shown that the Indiana law imposed excessive burdens subgroup voters, id. 20003. Because Justice Stevenss opinion narrowest, and because Justice Stevens did not determine whether law could invalidated based 
the burdens imposes subgroup voters, Crawford not precedential that 
question. find the rule decision, then, revert back Anderson and Burdick, which are cases that produced majority opinions. And read these cases, they require invalidation law when the state interests are insufficient justify the burdens the law imposes subgroups voters. Both cases emphasized that [a] court considering challenge state election law must weigh the character and magnitude the asserted injury the rights protected the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks vindicate against the precise interests put forward the State justifications for the burden imposed its rule, taking into consideration the extent which those interests make necessary burden the plaintiff's rights. Burdick, 504 U.S. 434 (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. 789) (emphasis added). The focus this language the rights individual plaintiff rather than the rights voters generally. Crawford, 553 U.S. 206 (opinion Scalia, J.). This implies that unjustified burden some voters will enough invalidate law, even if, because the law burdens other voters only trivially, the states interests are sufficient justify the burden placed such other voters. Moreover, Anderson, the Court explicitly framed the question presented whether the Ohio law issue placed unconstitutional burden the voting rights subgroup the states votersnamely, the subgroup composed Andersons supporters. 460 U.S. 782 (The question presented this case whether Ohio's early filing deadline placed unconstitutional burden the voting and associational rights Anderson's supporters.). For these reasons, conclude that law like Act invalid imposes burdens subgroup states voting population that are not outweighed the states justifications for the law. 
Given the above legal standards, will proceed follows. First, will identify the state interests the defendants put forward justify Act and assess the extent which Act necessary serve those interests. Second, will identify and assess the magnitude the burdens Act imposes the right vote. Finally, will determine whether the states interests are sufficiently weighty justify those burdens. The States Justifications for Act 
The defendants claim that Act 23's identification scheme serves four state interests: 
(1) detecting and preventing in-person voter-impersonation fraud; (2) promoting public confidence the integrity the electoral process; (3) detecting and deterring other types voter fraud; and promoting orderly election administration and accurate recordkeeping. Defs. Post-Trial Br. Detecting and preventing in-person voter-impersonation fraud 
The defendants claim that Act will deter prevent voter fraud making harder impersonate voter and cast ballot his her name without detection. Detecting and preventing in-person voter-impersonation fraud legitimate state interest, see Crawford, 553 U.S. 196, and the photo requirement does, some extent, serve that interest making harder impersonate voter the polls. However, explained below, because virtually voter impersonation occurs Wisconsin and exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become problem Wisconsin the foreseeable future, this particular state interest has very little weight. 
The evidence trial established that virtually voter impersonation occurs 
Wisconsin. The defendants could not point single instance known voter 
impersonation occurring Wisconsin any time the recent past. The only evidence even relating voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony Bruce Landgraf, Assistant District Attorney Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that major elections, which means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office asked investigate about cases which voter arrives the polls and told the poll worker that she has already cast ballot. Tr. 205657. However, his office determined that the vast majority these casesapproximately each electionhave innocent explanations, such poll workers placing indication that person has voted next the wrong name the poll book. Tr. 2057. Still, about one two cases each major election remain unexplained, and the defendants contend that these one two cases could instances voter-impersonation fraud. suppose thats possible, but most likely these cases also have innocent explanations and the District Attorneys office was simply unable confirm that they did. Moreover, the most Landgrafs testimony shows that cases ofpotential voter-impersonation fraud occur infrequently that rational person familiar with the relevant facts could concerned about them. There are over 660,000 eligible voters Milwaukee County, and the District Attorneys office finds two unexplained cases each Landgraf did not explain the methods his office used determine that there were innocent explanations for the vast majority cases, but the defendants introduced into evidence memos discussing the steps the District Attorneys office took investigate two potential stolen vote cases. Defs. Ex. 1033, 1034. both cases, the investigator interviewed the voter and the poll workers who recorded the allegedly fraudulent vote and reviewed the entry for the vote the poll book. Id. This was the extent the District Attorneys investigation. Frank Ex. 600 (Table 2). 
major election, that means that there less than one questionable vote cast each major 
election per 330,000 eligible voters. The rate potential voter-impersonation fraud thus exceedingly tiny. 
The evidence introduced the plaintiffs confirms that voter-impersonation fraud does not occur Wisconsin. The plaintiffs offered the testimony Lorraine Minnite, professor Rutgers University who specializes the study the incidence voter fraud contemporary American elections. Professor Minnite studied elections Wisconsin during the years 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2012 determine whether she could identify any incidents voter fraud. She consulted variety sources information, including newspaper databases, news releases the Wisconsin Attorney General, criminal complaints, decisions state courts, and documents issued the GAB. From these sources, Minnite was able identify only one case voter-impersonation fraud. Tr. 103642. And the single case voter-impersonation fraud did not involve in-person voter impersonation. Rather, that case involved man who applied for and cast his recently deceased wifes absentee ballot.7 Tr. 1041. Thus, from Minnites work, appears that there Act 23's photo requirement applies absentee ballots, and thus had been effect the time this incident may have prevented the man from voting his deceased wifes absentee ballot. However, the man could have easily circumvented Act this instance possessed his deceased wifes ID, since vote absentee all person needs mail copy photo with the request for absentee ballot. Tr. 104142; Wis. Stat.  6.87(1). Cf. Crawford Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949, 954 (7th Cir. 2007), affd, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (noting that photo requirement for absentee ballots pointless because [t]he voter could make photocopy his driver's license passport other government-issued identification and include with his absentee ballot, but there would way for the state election officials determine whether the photo actually belonged the absentee voter, since wouldn't presenting his face the polling place for comparison with the photo). 
have been zero incidents in-person voter-impersonation fraud Wisconsin during recent 
Some have suggested that voter fraud might more widespread than the low number prosecutions indicates because the laws that prohibit voter fraud are underenforced. See Crawford, 472 F.3d 953. However, the defendants not suggest that there any underenforcement such laws Wisconsin. And the evidence trial indicates that such laws are vigorously enforced. 2004, Joint Task Force was created investigate and prosecute voter fraud that occurred Milwaukee during the 2004 presidential election. LULAC Ex.  28. The task force included the United States Attorney, the Milwaukee County District Attorney, the Milwaukee City Attorney and representative the Milwaukee Police Department. 2002, the United States Department Justice started the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative response allegations voter fraud across the country. LULAC Ex.  20, 25. From 2002 2005, one the goals this initiative was identify and prosecute individuals who committed voter fraud. Previously, the Department had only brought charges against conspiracies corrupt the political process and not against individuals acting alone. One the cities the Department focused was Milwaukee. And, September 2008, the Wisconsin Attorney General announced that his office was partnering with the Milwaukee County District Attorney form Election Fraud Task Force detect, investigate and prosecute election fraud crimes Milwaukee County. LULAC Ex. 812  Before the 2010 general election, the Election Fraud Task Force expanded include the district attorneys more counties. Id.  The task force not only followed-up complaints about voter fraud, but also dispatched teams assistant attorneys general and special agents for the Division 
Criminal Investigation polling places across Wisconsin during the 2008, 2010 and 2012 
elections, including the special June 2012 recall election. Accordingly, the lack prosecutions for voter-impersonation fraud Wisconsin cannot attributed underenforcement. 
The defendants contend that the absence known instances voter-impersonation fraud could explained the fact that such fraud difficult detect. However, the witnesses called the defendants testify about their efforts investigate voter fraud did not indicate that voter-impersonation fraud difficult detect. When Michael Sandvick, former Milwaukee police officer, was asked trial whether not voter fraud was difficult detect, answered, There are different types voter fraud. Some them are hard detect and some them are not. Tr. 2036. When asked what types are hard detect, gave only one example: someone using fake address vote. did not mention voter impersonation. 
Moreover, voter impersonation occurring often enough threaten the integrity the electoral process, then should able find more evidence that occurring than do. If, for example, voter impersonation frequent occurrence, then should find more than two unexplained cases per major election which voter arrives the polls only discover that someone has already cast ballot his her name. Another way determine whether voter impersonation occurring method suggested the defendants expert witness, M.V. Hood III, professor political science the University Georgia. See M.V. Hood III William Gillespie, They Just Not Vote Like They Used To: Methodology Empirically Assess Election Fraud, Social Science Quarterly (March 2012). Professor Hood and his coauthor explain that one way commit voter
impersonation fraud impersonate registered voter who recently deceased. 
Obviously, the deceased voter cannot show the polls, and thus person who wanted cast illegal ballot could appear the place where the deceased voter was registered and give the deceased voters name. Hoods method for detecting this type fraud involves comparing database deceased registered voters database persons who had cast ballots recent election. the researcher able match entries both databases, then further investigation could undertaken determine whether voter impersonation had occurred. Hood and his coauthor applied this methodology the 2006 elections Georgia and found evidence ballots being illegally cast the name deceased voters. Id. 8192. 
Thus, although voter-impersonation fraud may difficult detect, not invisible. occurring Wisconsin any significant extent, then trial the defendants should have been able produce evidence that is. The absence such evidence confirms that there virtually voter-impersonation fraud Wisconsin. 
The defendants also contend that even there currently voter impersonation Wisconsin, the state has interest taking steps prevent voter-impersonation fraud from becoming problem the future. support this contention, the defendants point out that the Supreme Court has stated that legislatures should permitted respond potential deficiencies the electoral process with foresight rather than reactively, provided that the response reasonable and does not significantly impinge constitutionally protected rights. Munro Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 19596 (1986). However, the Supreme Court has also stated that states cannot burden the right vote order address dangers that are remote and only theoretically imaginable. Williams Rhodes, 
393 U.S. 23, (1968). the present case, evidence suggests that voter-impersonation 
fraud will become problem any time the foreseeable future. the plaintiffs unrebutted evidence shows, person would have insane commit voter-impersonation fraud. The potential costs perpetrating the fraud, which include $10,000 fine and three years imprisonment, are extremely high comparison the potential benefits, which would nothing more than one additional vote for preferred candidate (or one fewer vote for opposing candidate), vote which unlikely change the elections outcome. Tr. 101719, 1342. Adding the cost the fact that, contrary the defendants rhetoric, voter-impersonation fraud not easy commit. commit voter-impersonation fraud, person would need know the name another person who registered particular polling place, know the address that person, know that the person has not yet voted, and also know that one the polls will realize that the impersonator not the individual being impersonated. Tr. 1341. The defendants offered evidence trial support the notion that easy obtain this knowledge. Thus, given that person would have insane commit voter-impersonation fraud, Act cannot deemed reasonable response potential problem.8	 Promoting public confidence the integrity the electoral process 
The defendants claim that the photo requirement serves the states interest also note that, the state were concerned with preventing voter fraud from becoming problem the future, would taking steps combat forms voter fraud other than in-person voter impersonation. Professor Barry Burden explained, [i]f there fraud taking place any scale, its going more likely happen with absentee ballots and with voter registration, but thats not where [Act 23] targeted its efforts effort stop voter fraud. Tr. 1342. 
promoting confidence the integrity the electoral process. true that the state has 
interest protecting the publics confidence the integrity elections that citizens are encouraged participate the democratic process. Crawford, 553 U.S. 197. However, the defendants produced empirical support for the notion that Act 23's photo requirement actually furthers this interest. contrast, one the plaintiffs expert witnesses, Barry Burden, professor political science the University WisconsinMadison, testified that the available empirical evidence indicates that photo requirements have effect confidence trust the electoral process. described study conducted Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily and published the Harvard Law Review which looked the relationship between photo laws and voter confidence the electoral process. See Stephen Ansolabehere Nathaniel Persily, Vote Fraud the Eye the Beholder: The Role Public Opinion the Challenge Voter Identification Requirements, 121 Harv. Rev. 1737, 1756 (2008). Burden explained that this study employed multivariate analysis survey data and found zero relationship between voter laws and persons level trust confidence the electoral process. Tr. 1385. 
Perhaps the reason why photo requirements have effect confidence trust the electoral process that such laws undermine the publics confidence the electoral process much they promote it. Professor Minnite testified, the publicity surrounding photo legislation creates the false perception that voter-impersonation fraud widespread, thereby needlessly undermining the publics confidence the electoral 
process:  And based your research, you think the public thinks theres more voter fraud than there actually is? Yes.	 And why you think that occurs?	 Well, think people dont pay lot attention these issues. would imagine that concern about voter fraud probably not the very top everyones list concerns with respect public policy forth, and they dont know lot about it. 
They dont know lot about how elections are run. They dont know about all the details. They dont pay lot attention when politicians are fighting over laws. They only know what they may pick little bit from the news here and there. And when you have lot this discussion about voter fraud when voter fraud allegations are being made and theyre being picked the media and theyre being repeated over and over and over again, the public might generally have sense that there might little bit problem. 
And Ive also written about howand this view, how theres kind ofwe have kind cynicism about politics the United States. And have what call the voter fraud myth, connecting sort the larger cultural myth about the corruption politics and that people who engage politics are somehow corrupt. sort connects broader sense perhaps new kind cynicism when people are catching every now and then the news the newspaper another story about somebody may have voted twice [an] illegal citizen may have cast illegal ballot. general, the sort context over the last many years 
thats been created the average person, think they dont know what make it. they defer what would call, survey research, elite opinion. And when they hear people important positions government saying theres lot fraud out there, when this particular law meant address all this fraud, theyre going intend maybe take that authority because theyll say dont know. dont know how run elections. dont hear too much about it, but hear important person government official saying theres lot fraud, think thats really influenced people think that the problem really bigger than is. 
Tr. 101920. Burden likewise testified that unsubstantiated allegations voter fraud made public officials undermine confidence the electoral system. Tr. 138889. And Kevin 
Kennedy, the director the GAB, letter the Speaker the Wisconsin State Assembly, offered the same opinion: Speaking frankly behalf our agency and local election officials, absent direct evidence believe continued unsubstantiated allegations voter fraud tend unnecessarily undermine the confidence that voters have election officials and the results the elections. Tr. 1389. 
Another way that photo laws undermine confidence the electoral process causing members the public think that the photo requirement itself disenfranchising voters and making harder for citizens vote, thus making results elections less reflective the will the people. See Tr. 57879, 58283 (testimony that Act will exacerbate the lack trust that the Black and Latino communities already have the system); Tr. 951 (Lorene Hutchins, Wisconsin voter, testified that she believes Act designed keep certain people from voting); Tr. 396 (testimony that many voters believe Act was designed confuse voters). 
For these reasons, conclude that Act does not further the states interest promoting confidence the electoral process. Detecting and deterring other types fraud 
The defendants contend that the photo requirement will help detect and deter forms voter fraud other than voter impersonation. However, the defendants not adequately explain how that could so. The first type unlawful voting the defendants cite voting under invalid voter registrations. Defs. Post-Trial Br. 1213. The examples the defendants give this kind voter fraud are voting registered voter who has been convicted felony and voting non-citizen who has managed register vote. 
However, the defendants not explain how the requirement present the polls will prevent these types unlawful voting, and cannot think any way that could. person registered and has valid ID, that person will allowed vote. evidence the record indicates that persons convicted felony non-citizens will unable present qualifying forms ID. The defendants also claim that the photo requirement will help prevent unlawful voting registered Wisconsin voters who longer maintain residency the state but who have not yet been removed from the poll list and unlawful double voting individuals who register vote more than one state. Again, however, the defendants fail explain how the requirement present photo will prevent these forms unlawful voting, and cannot think any way that could. Thus, find that Act does not serve the states interest preventing types voting fraud other than in-person voter-impersonation fraud.	 Promoting orderly election administration and accurate recordkeeping 
The final state interest cited the defendants the states interest promoting orderly election administration and accurate recordkeeping. Again, there question that this important state interest. See Crawford, 553 U.S. 196. However, the defendants have not identified any way which Act 23's photo requirement serves this interest that distinct from the states interest detecting and preventing voter fraud. See id. (mentioning the states interest promoting orderly election administration and accurate recordkeeping the course discussion the states interest detecting and preventing voter fraud). Thus, Act serves the states interest orderly election administration and accurate recordkeeping only the extent that serves the states 
interest detecting and preventing voter fraud. For the reasons already discussed, Act 
only weakly serves the latter interest. The Burdens Imposed Act 
Act applies all Wisconsin residents. However, the burdens imposes the right vote fall primarily individuals who not currently possess photo ID. For those who already have qualifying ID, such drivers license, the barrier voting that Act creates extremely low: such individuals must simply remember bring their IDs the polls. But, will discuss, many eligible voters not currently have photo ID. And the daily lives many these individuals are such that they have not had obtain photo for purposes such driving. For these eligible voters, the requirement that they obtaina photo order vote erects more substantial barrier. They must whatever takes gather the necessary documents and make special trip the DMV order procure that they will expect use for purpose other than vote. 
Although true that those individuals who already have IDs must have one time experienced the burdens and inconveniences obtaining them (and must continue experience the burdens and inconveniences keeping their IDs valid), the photo requirement creates unique barrier for those who would not obtain photo but for Act Tr. 4041 (Alice Weddle testified that she does not have qualifying ID, does not drive, has never flown airplane, has never left the United States and does not have bank account); Tr. (Plaintiff Eddie Holloway testified that does not have qualifying and has never traveled airplane); Tr. 20708 (Plaintiff Shirley Brown testified that she does not have and has never left the country flown plane); Tr. 70304 (Rose Thompson testified that before Act 23, she had need for photo ID); Tr. 434 (Kenneth Lumpkin testified that inner-city businesses understand that many their customers not have photo and that they adapt as, for example, cashing checks without requiring ID). 
23. The individuals who obtained their IDs before the photo requirement went into effect 
(or who would today obtain for reasons unrelated voting) expect derive benefits from having those IDs that are unrelated voting. For example, person who obtains drivers license receives daily benefitthe ability drivefrom having experienced the burden gathering the necessary documents and visiting the DMV. Once the photo requirement was adopted, that person received the benefit being able vote additional cost. contrast, person whose daily life did not require possession photo prior the imposition the photo requirement unlikely derive any benefit from possessing photo other than the ability continue voting. Yet that person must pay the same costsin the form the hassle obtaining the underlying documents and making trip the DMVas the person who obtained the for driving. This difference expected benefits results Act imposing unique burden those who need obtain exclusively for voting, with the result that these individuals are more likely deterred from voting than those who already possess for other reasons. 
Based primarily the testimony plaintiffs expert, Leland Beatty, statistical marketing consultant with extensive experience business and politics, find that approximately 300,000 registered voters Wisconsin, roughly all registered voters, lack qualifying ID. put this number context, 2010 the race for governor Wisconsin was decided 124,638 votes, and the race for United States Senator was decided 105,041 votes. See LULAC Ex.  Table Thus, the number registered voters who lack qualifying large enough change the outcome Appendix discuss detail how arrived this figure. 
Wisconsin elections. addition these registered voters without ID, there are number persons who are eligible vote but not yet registered who lack ID. Because Wisconsin permits same-day registration the polls, any eligible voter may become registered voter election day. One the plaintiffs expert witnesses, Matthew Barreto, professor the University Washington and expert voting behavior, survey methods and statistical analysis, conducted telephonic survey eligible voters Milwaukee County. Professor Barreto found that there were 63,085 eligible voters Milwaukee County alone who lack qualifying ID.11 substantial number the 300,000 plus eligible voters who lack photo are low-income individuals who either not require photo navigate their daily lives who have encountered obstacles that have prevented deterred them from obtaining photo ID. trial, heard from eight witnesses who intend vote Wisconsin elections but who not currently possess qualifying photo ID. Seven these witnesses are low income. Alice Weddle testified that she unemployed, receives Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits and has bank accounts credit cards. She attempted obtain but was unable because she does not have birth certificate. Eddie Holloway testified that would homeless his sister did not agree take him in, and that various forms public assistance. testified that attempted obtain but was unable because error his birth certificate that cannot afford have corrected. Rickey Davis testified that unemployed, has bank accounts and attempted obtain photo but could not get one because does not have birth Appendix discuss Professor Barretos conclusions more detail. 
certificate. Shirley Brown testified that she lives Social Security disability and attempted obtain but was unable because she does not have birth certificate. Melvin Robertson testified that has education beyond grade school and that would like obtain but cannot because lacks birth certificate. Rose Thompson testified that after Act was enacted, she attempted obtain but could not afford pay the fees associated with obtaining her birth certificate from Mississippi. Sim Newcomb testified that does not drive, relies public transportation, has not recently traveled outside the United States, does not travel airplanes, and that the extent needs photo for banking, able use his Veterans card, which not acceptable under Act 
23. testified that attempted obtain Wisconsin card but could not satisfy the DMVs documentation requirements.12 
Professor Barretos research sheds additional light the demographic makeup those who lack and lends further support the conclusion that substantial number the 300,000 plus voters who lack are low income. Barreto found that between 20,494 and 40,511 eligible voters Milwaukee County who lack earn less than $20,000 per year. Frank Ex. 600 31. already noted, Barreto found that the total number eligible voters Milwaukee County who lack 63,085. Thus, individuals who make less than $20,000 per year comprise between 32% and 64% the population Many other witnesses, including public officials and employees service organizations, testified that they have encountered many low-income voters who lack qualifying IDs. These witnesses include Nicole Collazo-Santiago, Yolanda Adams, Carmen Cabrera, Pastor Michelle Yvette Townsend Lopez, Anita Johnson, Kenneth Lumpkin, Richard Bolar, Jayme Montgomery Baker, and Reverend Willie Brisco. Tr. 12830, 13749, 154, 16372, 37173, 397400, 433, 436, 44547, 49192, 578, 582. eligible voters without ID. Barreto also found that 80.5% the eligible voters without have education past the high-school level. Frank Ex. 600 29. Because individuals with less education are likely lower income,13 this finding also shows that substantial number voters who lack are low income. light the fact that substantial number the 300,000 plus voters who lack are low income, Act 23's burdens must assessed with reference them rather than with reference typical middle- upper-class voter. Although the latter voter may have little trouble obtaining ID, she not the type voter who will need obtain one order comply with Act 23. Thus, the discussion that follows, identify the burdens associated with obtaining qualifying photo and explain how they will impact low-income voters. 
For almost all low-income voters who lack ID, the easiest obtain will the free state card, which issued the DMV. obtain state card, person generally must present documents that satisfy four requirements: (1) proof name and date birth, 
(2) proof United States citizenship legal presence the United States, (3) proof identity, and (4) proof Wisconsin residency. See Wis. Admin. Code  Trans 102.15. The DMV will only accept certain documents satisfy each these requirements.14 However, Tr. 1208 (Plaintiffs expert, Marc Levine, Professor History, Urban Studies and Economic Development the University Wisconsin-Milwaukee, testified that education levels correlate quite highly with levels employment.). The DMV allows person apply for either REAL compliant non-compliant card. REAL compliant card card that satisfies the minimum issuance standards set out the REAL Act 2005, and will accepted the federal government for official purposes (such entering federal building boarding commercial airplane). this opinion, set out the requirements for obtaining non-compliant card because they are little more flexible. person has Wisconsin drivers license state card that has been expired for fewer 
than eight years, the person will allowed renew using procedure that generally requires only proof social security number. Tr. 109294; Defs. Ex. 1074. prove name, date birth and United States citizenship, most people will need produce birth certificate. The evidence trial showed that substantial number eligible voters who lack Act 23-qualifying IDs also lack birth certificates. Professor Barreto, his survey Milwaukee County eligible voters, found that 25,354 persons lacked both qualifying and birth certificate.15 Tr. 30102. Seven the witnesses who testified about their own lack qualifying stated that was the lack birth certificate that was preventing them from obtaining ID. Tr. 3738, 9394, 20911, 401, 41819, 70809; Frank Ex. 606 712. obtain Wisconsin birth certificate, person must produce either drivers license state card two documents from the following list: (1) government-issued with photograph, (2) United States passport, (3) checkbook bankbook, (4) major credit card, (5) health-insurance card, (6) recent, signed lease, (7) utility bill traffic ticket. Tr. 1663; Frank Ex. 138. The person must also pay fee $20. Wis. Stat.  69.22(1)(a).16 Those who were not born Wisconsin will need determine how obtain those who lacked both and birth certificate, some were able satisfy the name, date birth, and citizenship requirements using other documents, and thus only 20,162 the 25,354 persons who lacked birth certificates would have been unable satisfy those requirements. Tr. 30102. After the passage Act 23, two Wisconsin counties, Dane and Milwaukee, allocated sums pay for Wisconsin birth certificates for persons born those counties. Tr. 494, 53536, 1793. birth certificate from their place birth. generally takes more time and expense 
obtain birth certificate from outside ones state residence than does obtain birth certificate from within the state. See LULAC Ex. 811  60. Professor Barreto found that 46.9% eligible voters Milwaukee County who lack both accepted photo and valid birth certificate were born outside Wisconsin. Frank Ex. 600 24. 
Individuals who need free state card must also produce document that the DMV will accept proof identity. Professor Barreto found that there are approximately 1,640 eligible voters Milwaukee County alone who not have qualifying photo IDs and not have any the documents the DMV accepts prove identity. Frank Ex. 600 37. Newcomb, one the eight witnesses who testified about their inability obtain ID, testified that when tried obtain state card was unsuccessful because lacked proof identity. Tr. 84546. Other witnesses, Dewayne Smith and Carl Ellis, testified that they did not have proof identity when Act first passed and had obtain such proof before they could apply for state cards. Tr. 56263, 56667, 85658. 
Most voters who not have proof identity will need procure social security card, this the most commonly available document use prove identity. Defs. Ex. 1077; Tr. 467, 1819. obtain social security card, person must visit the Social Security Office and show convincing documentary evidence identity. C.F.R.  422.10(c). Such evidence may consist drivers license, identity card, school record, medical record, marriage record, passport, Department Homeland Security document, other similar document serving identify the individual. Id. Voters who need free state cards vote will not have drivers licenses, state cards passports, they will need present one the other items the list. they not have one these items, they will need 
procure one visiting school, hospital another governmental agency, where they may 
again asked for ID, and the document may cost money. See Tr. 857 (Smith had ask his sister show the hospital her photo could get his medical records apply for social security card); Tr. 121 (marriage certificate from the State Illinois costs $11). 
The remaining documentary requirement obtain state card proof residence. For most voters, this requirement will easy satisfy, the DMV accepts variety documents that most individuals are likely have hand. Still, homeless voters who not have relationship with social-service agency will unable prove residency. Tr. 1889 (homeless people can only prove residence getting letter from social service agency). And they will unable provide the DMV with physical address where can send their cards once they are ready. Id. This will make impossible for them obtain state card because the DMV does not allow individuals pick cards in-person. Id. 
Having explained the general legal requirements for obtaining free state card and identified the necessary underlying documents, consider the practical obstacles person likely face deciding whether obtain for voting purposes. Again, because most individuals who lack are low income, consider these obstacles from the perspective such individual. 
The first obstacle obtaining will identify the requirements for obtaining free state card. able summarize the requirements for obtaining because have access the Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Code and heard testimony the topic trial. typical voter who needs ID, however, must educate him herself these requirements some other way. Although this may easy for some, for others, 
especially those with lower levels education, will harder. Moreover, person who 
needs obtain one more the required documents obtain ID, such birth certificate, must determine not only the DMVs documentation requirements, but also the requirements the agency that issues the missing document. This adds layer complexity the process. See,e.g., Tr. 9394 (Davis testified that the DMV told him needs order his birth certificate from Tennessee but has idea how about ordering it). 
Assuming the person able determine what she needs obtain ID, the person must next consider the time and effort involved actually obtaining the ID. This will involve least one trip the DMV. There are DMV service centers the state. Defs. Ex. 1071. All but two these close before 5:00 p.m. and only one open weekends. Tr. 108384, 180607. So, likely that the person will have take time off from work. The person will either need use vacation time its available forego the hourly wages that she could have earned the time takes obtain the ID. See Tr. 845 (Newcomb was unable take paid time off from work obtain ID). The person will also have arrange for transportation. Since this person does not have drivers license and low income, most likely she must use public transportation arrange for another form transportation. See Tr. 84546 (Newcomb does not have car and had take 45-minute bus ride get the DMV); Tr. 211 (Brown paid $3.00 each way driver from Medicare she could get the DMV); Tr. 562, 56667 (Ellis walked the DMV, which took minutes each way, because does not have car and could not afford bus fare); Tr. 15152 (Adams testified that the DMV Kenosha out the county, which means people who live the inner-city and not have cars must take the bus get there); Tr. 43033 (Lumpkin stated that the location the DMV Racine County problem because 35 miles away from the inner-city where the majority the citys population lives, and cabs not serve the inner-city); see also Frank Ex. 635 5051 (GAB received lot complaints from voters who were having hard time getting the DMV, even from people the City Milwaukee, which has pretty good public transportation system). Further, for some individuals public transportation will help because not all the DMVs service centers are accessible public transit. Tr. 1848. the person does not have all the documents the DMV requires obtain ID, then the person will most likely have visit least one government agency addition the DMV. that the case, then the person will likely have take even more time off work and pay additional transportation costs. Tr. 85658 (Smith testified that had take the bus and ask for rides from others order visit the DMV, the Social Security Office, and other locations). Perhaps possible for person obtain missing underlying document mail, but even that will require time and effort. person who needs obtain missing underlying document also likely have pay fee for the document. For some low-income individuals, will difficult pay even $20.00 for birth certificate. See Tr. 198889 (Robert Spindell, member the Board Election Commissioners for the City Milwaukee, stated that personally knows individuals who will cannot pay even $20.00 for birth certificate); see also Tr. 43132 ([W]hen the choice made whether not pay $33 for put some food the table, think any can kinda guess which way people will go.). Three witnesses, Thompson, Davis and Ellis, testified that they could barely afford pay for birth certificate. Tr. 88, 56466, 70405. And Raymond Ciszewski testified that has met many 
low-income individuals Milwaukee who have trouble paying for their birth certificates. 
Ciszewski volunteer St. Benedicts Church Milwaukee. Tr. 53031. works the 
churchs birth-certificate program, which helps low-income individuals obtain birth 
certificates paying the birth-certificate fee the extent exceeds $5.00. Tr. 53435. The 
program primarily serves homeless individuals, persons recently out jail and persons 
rehabilitation programs. Tr. 53233. Ciszewski testified that over the last seven years 
has helped over 600 people acquire birth certificates who would not otherwise have been 
able afford them, and many these people could barely afford the $5.00 co-pay the 
church requires. Tr. 532, 53436.17 Some voters will find that there birth certificate file for them the states 
where they were born. This not common problem, but will affect some voters. Tr. 
1103, 1161. Melvin Robertson and Nancy Wilde testified that they were born Wisconsin, 
but the Wisconsin Vital Records Office does not have birth certificates file for them. Tr. 
401, 41819 (Robertson); Frank Ex. 607 614 (Wilde). Missing birth certificates are also common problem for older African American voters who were born home the South 
because midwives did not issue birth certificates. Tr. 3738, 20506, 209, 372, 431, 700. 
And Amish Mennonite voters frequently lack birth certificates. Tr. 185657. There are also 
some voters whose official birth records have been destroyed, for example, natural 
disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Tr. 47980, 185657. there birth record file persons state birth, person can use the 
MV3002 procedure prove citizenship and name and date birth. This procedure 
requires person ask his her state birth complete DMV form MV3002, certifying 
that there birth record file. Wis. Adm. Code  Trans. 102.15(1), (3)(b). person 
must then submit the completed MV3002 DMV team leader supervisor for review 
along with alternative documentation that provides strong evidence the persons 
name, date birth and place birth. Tr. 1872; see also Wis. Adm. Code  Trans. 
102.15(1), (3)(b). Team leaders and supervisors have the discretion decide case
by-case basis whether persons alternative documentation strong enough. Tr. 1872; 
Wis. Adm. Code  Trans. 102.15(3)(c). result, whether voter able obtain state card will depend which DMV service center the voter visits and which supervisor duty. 
The DMV does not, however, publicize the MV3002 procedure because wants 
minimize exceptions. Tr. 474, 1872, 187778. result, person who needs use the 
MV3002 may never learn about it. Consequently, those who need use are more likely give trying get than granted exception. The testimony Debra additional problem whether person who lacks can obtain one time use vote. For many who need ID, will take longer than day two gather the 
necessary documents and make trip the DMV. Indeed, person needs obtain 
birth certificate, especially from another state, might take weeks longer obtain it. Tr. 
1114, 166061. election imminent, person may unable procure time vote validate provisional ballot the Friday after the election. 
Another problem that arises persons having errors discrepancies the 
documents needed obtain ID. For example, the DMV requires the name persons 
Crawford illustrates this problem. Crawford testified that she first took her mother, Bettye 
Jones, the DMV service center Waukesha County get free state card for voting 
purposes. But customer service representative the DMV told Jones she could not get state card because she did not have certified copy her birth certificate. Tr. 6061. 
Crawford explained that her mother was born home Tennessee 1935 and had 
never been issued birth certificate, and Jones offered the DMV official letter from the 
State Tennessee stating that had birth record file. Tr. 5657, 6162. The 
customer service representative told her this was not sufficient. Tr. 62. Crawford asked 
speak with manager, and the manager agreed with the front-line staff member and 
insisted that Jones produce birth certificate. Tr. 62. 
Crawford asked the vital-records office Tennessee conduct another search, 
which again produced birth record. Tr. 64. She then started the complicated process applying for delayed birth certificate. Tr. 6472. While she was doing this, she 
contacted the DMV again via email confirm that the birth certificate really was required 
and was again told that was. Tr. 74. When she asked third time exception could made for extenuating circumstances, she was told, The supervisor the DMV station 
you has the authority make exceptions; however, doubt one would made for 
not having either birth certificate passport. Tr. 74. Once she learned that supervisors 
had some discretion, Crawford decided take her mother the DMV service center 
Milwaukee County the hopes finding more helpful supervisor. Tr. 75. There the 
supervisor agreed waive the birth certificate requirement after viewing Joness 
alternative documentation. Tr. 75. Crawford had known about the MV3002 procedure, 
Joness experience with the DMV might have been much different. was, Jones only 
received state card because her daughter made multiple inquiries and took Jones 
two different DMV service centers. voter Joness position who less tenacious will 
have through the difficult process obtaining delayed birth certificate order 
preserve her right vote. 
social security card and birth certificate match. there error persons social 
security record, the person must visit the Social Security Office and correct the record. Tr. 
1884.18 there error persons birth certificate, the person must get amended.19 
Making additional trips government agencies resolve discrepancies will require more 
time off work and additional transportation costs. 
The defendants contend that the burden those with errors discrepancies their Janet Turja, manager the DMVs service center Waukesha County, testified that she encounters individuals with errors their social security records about once twice week. Tr. 480. And Diane Hermann-Brown testified that she had take her mother the Social Security Office because her middle name was Lois but Social Security had listed Loise. Tr. 179596. Six witnesses testified trial that they have had problems with birth certificates, either their own parents, that contained errors that the DMV said had corrected. See Tr. 4351 (Holloways name Eddie Lee Holloway, Jr. but the birth certificate says Eddie Junior Holloway and has not been able correct it); Frank Ex. 606 89; Frank Ex. 1087 (Ruthelle Franks maiden name was Wedepohl but spelled Wedepal her birth certificate); Tr. 95253, 96568 (Lorene Hutchinss birth certificate was missing her first name); Tr. 95100 (Genevieve Winslows maiden name was Genevieve Kujawski but her birth certificate says Ganava Kujansky); Tr. 11314 (Miriam Simons mothers maiden name was Shirley Grace Mendel but birth certificate says Genevieve Shirley Mendel); Tr. 161516 (William Trokans fathers name was Andrew Trokan but birth certificate says Andro Trokan). Amending birth certificate can expensive and time-consuming. The process depends persons state birth and the type error the birth certificate, but most states charge fee for amended birth certificate. See, e.g., Wis. Stat.  69.22(5)(a) (standard fee for amended birth certificate Wisconsin $30.00), see also Frank Ex. 606 910 (Frank was told could cost $200.00 get her Wisconsin birth certificate amended). And person might need travel the place where she was born collect documents that verify the persons name, date birth, place birth, such early school records baptismal certificate. See Tr. 56971 (the birth date Reverend Willie Briscos Mississippi birth certificate was wrong and his grandmother Mississippi had collect his hospital and school records and travel 210 miles apply for amendment for him). person might even have hire local attorney apply for amendment. Tr. 95963 (to get her Mississippi birth certificate amended Katherine Clark had hire attorney and the process took more than six months and cost more than $2000). 
underlying documents mitigated the fact that the DMV has discretion grant 
exceptions. Although true that the DMV will sometimes make exceptions for such persons, this fact not made known applicants, Tr. 112124, 189194, and thus those who might benefit from the exception procedure are unlikely learn it. Consequently, those with errors their underlying documents are more likely give trying get than granted exception. The testimony Genevieve Winslow illustrates this problem. Winslow eligible vote Wisconsin. She testified that she did not have qualifying photo when Act went into effect, she visited the DMV service center Milwaukee County Grange Avenue apply for free state card for voting purposes. Tr. 111. She brought with her certified copy her birth certificate, certified copy her marriage certificate, her social security card, her Medicare card, her property tax bill and her expired passport. Tr. 106. But the DMV employee who reviewed her application told her she could not get because her name misspelled her birth certificate. Tr. 99100. Her maiden name was Genevieve Kujawski, but her birth certificate says Ganava Kujansky (Ganava the Polish version Genevieve). Tr. 9596. The employee told Winslow she would need get her birth certificate amended. Tr. 10607. Winslow and her son asked speak with two different supervisors, who both agreed that Winslow would need get amended birth certificate. Tr. 107. Her son was frustrated this experience and decided call Winslows state senator, Senator Tim Carpenter. Tr. 10001. aide the senators office told Winslows son contact James Miller, official the DMV. Tr. 10001, 10910. Miller said Winslow should return the same DMV service center with the same documentation and ask for particular supervisor. Tr. 11011. When she did this, the DMV issued her ID. Tr. 11112. one ever explained Winslow why she was able get ID. They just told her was special deal. Tr. 101.20 Two other witnesses testified that get exception they also had get public official involved. Miriam Simon testified that her mother, Shirley Simon, who passed away shortly before trial, was eligible vote Wisconsin. Simon took her mother the DMV service center Milwaukee County Mill Road after the passage Act she could obtain free state card for voting purposes. Tr. 116. Her mother brought certified copy her birth certificate, her social security card and utility bill. Tr. 117. But the employee the DMV who reviewed Simons mothers application told her she could not get state card because there was error her birth certificate. Tr. 11819. Her mothers maiden name was Shirley Grace Mendel, but her birth certificate said Genevieve Shirley Mendel. Tr. 11314. All her other documentation listed her married name, which was Shirley Simon. Tr. 117. Simon had anticipated problem with her mothers birth certificate and had brought affidavit from her uncle explaining that the hospital had made error when submitting the information for the birth certificate. Tr. 11718. The affidavit was drafted the 1970s and her mother had previously used obtain passport. Id. The DMV employee said the affidavit was insufficient and suggested that Simons mother get amended birth certificate. Tr. 11819. Like Winslow, Simon was frustrated this experience and decided call her mothers state senator, Senator Chris Larsen, for help. aide the senators office told Simon that the senator would have someone from the DMV call her. Tr. 11920. Shortly thereafter, she received call from DMV supervisor Barney Hall. Tr. 12021. told her that she got marriage certificate for her mother, the DMV would able issue her ID. Id. She did this and returned the DMV where supervisor issued her mother state card. Tr. 12223. 
William Trokan testified that took his father, Andrew Trokan, the DMV Milwaukee County Mill Road get free state card for voting purposes. Tr. 161415. His father brought certified copy his birth certificate, his social security card, his employee from Milwaukee County and utility bill. Tr. 1615. But the DMV employee who reviewed his fathers application said could not get because his birth certificate listed his first name Andro, which the Slovak spelling Andrew. Tr. 1615. All his other documentation said Andrew. Tr. 161516. Trokan asked speak with supervisor, but the supervisor agreed that the birth certificate would need amended before the DMV could issue state card. Tr. 1616. Trokan left frustrated and, like Winslow, called Senator Carpenter. Tr. 16161617. Senator Carpenter said would set appointment for Trokan and his father return the DMV. Tr. 161718. During this second visit, the DMV issued Trokans father state card. Id. 
Kristina Boardman, the deputy administrator the DMV, testified that the DMV has also received emails from public officials behalf other voters who had trouble obtaining state cards, and high-ranking DMV officials have intervened behalf those voters. For example, she received email from Senator Carpenters office about Leo Navulis, voter who was denied free state card because his name spelled wrong his birth certificate. Tr. 1109. Navulis visited the DMV service center Milwaukee County Chase Avenue and presented certified copy his birth certificate and social security card, but was turned away because his social security card said Leo Peter 
Given the obstacles identified above, likely that substantial number the 
300,000 plus voters who lack qualifying will deterred from voting. Although not every voter will face all these obstacles, many voters will face some them, particularly those who are low income. And the evidence trial showed that even small obstacles will enough deter many individuals who lack from voting. Professor Burden testified about the calculus voting, which the dominant framework used scholars study voter turnout. LULAC Ex. 811 811; Tr. 127883. Under this framework, even small increases the costs voting can deter person from voting, since the benefits voting are slight. Tr. 127980. Burden explained: 
[The framework] suggests that voting low-cost, low-benefit activity and that very slight changes, marginal changes the costs can have large effects participation. even small factors like weather illness, day-to-day interruptions can deter person from voting. Obviously administrative costs imposed the state could part that well. 
Tr. 127980; see also Tr. 122021 (Professor Levine also testified about the calculus voting). Thus, for many voters who lack ID, even minor burdens associated with obtaining one will enough deter them from voting. Cf. Crawford 472 F.3d 951 ([E]ven very slight costs time bother out-of-pocket expense deter many people from voting, least from voting elections they're not much interested in.). But light the 
Navulis while his birth certificate said Leo Packus Navwulis. Frank Ex. 428. Boardman reviewed Navuliss case and told the supervisor the DMV service center make exception and issue Navulis ID. Id. Boardman also received some emails from Governor Scott Walkers office asking officials the DMV assist voters who were having trouble obtaining state cards. For example, she received email about Audrey Anderson, who had asked the governor for help because her mother had been denied because there were errors her birth certificate. Tr. 186163; Frank Ex. 429. response the email, Boardman asked another DMV official meet with Anderson and try resolve the situation. Id. 
evidence presented trial, also clear that for many voters, especially those who are low 
income, the burdens associated with obtaining will anything but minor. Therefore, conclude that Act will deter substantial number eligible voters from casting ballot. Weighing the Burdens Against the State Interests the previous section determined that Act 23's burdens will deter prevent substantial number the 300,000 plus voters who lack from voting. Substantial course not precise quantity, but more precise measurement impracticable. There way determine exactly how many people Act will prevent deter from voting without considering the individual circumstances each the 300,000 plus citizens who lack ID. But matter how imprecise estimate may be, absolutely clear that Act will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes. Cf. Crawford, 472 F.3d 95354 (assessing whether there are fewer impersonations than there are eligible voters whom the [Indiana photo ID] law will prevent from voting). Thus, Act 23's burdens are not justified the states interest detecting and preventing in-person voter impersonation. Moreover, because the states interest safeguarding confidence the electoral process evenly distributed across both sides the balancea law such Act undermines confidence the electoral process much promotes itthat interest cannot provide sufficient justification for the burdens placed the right vote. Accordingly, the burdens imposed Act those who lack are not justified. 
Having found violation the Fourteenth Amendment, turn the appropriate remedy. The lead opinion Crawford noted that, even the Indiana photo law placed unjustified burden some voters, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the proper remedy would invalidate the entire statute. 553 U.S. 203. the present case, 
however, invalidating Act the only practicable way remove the unjustified burdens 
placed the substantial number eligible voters who lack IDs. The plaintiffs suggest that could order the defendants allow eligible voters without photo IDs vote without showing signing affidavit affirming their identities and lack ID. However, ordering such relief would the functional equivalent enjoining the current law and replacing with new law drafted rather than the state legislature. not clear that this approach would amount narrower remedy than simply enjoining the current law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts avoid judicial legislation, United States Natl Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479 (1995), and this apt term for the remedy envisioned the plaintiffs. grant this remedy, would need make policy judgment whether eligible voters who not have IDs should required sign affidavits identity before receiving ballot. And, found that affidavit was required, would need decide what language the affidavit should contain. Once issued this relief, would have supervise the states election-administration officials ensure that they were properly implementing instructions. These tasks are outside the limited institutional competence federal court, and therefore may not rewrite the photo requirement conform constitutional requirements. See Ayotte Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320, 32930 (2006). conclude that the only practicable remedy enjoin enforcement the photo requirement.21 also note that the defendants have not suggested that any remedy other than enjoining enforcement the photo requirement would appropriate remedy this case. 
III. Section the Voting Rights Act 
Both the LULAC plaintiffs and the Frank plaintiffs contend that Act 23's photo requirement violates Section the Voting Rights Act. Before addressing the merits this claim, address the defendants argument that the LULAC plaintiffs lack standing sue under the Voting Right Act. Standing LULAC plaintiffs 
The defendants contend that the four LULAC plaintiffs lack standing pursue claim for injunctive relief under Section the Voting Rights Act. Whether they has little practical significance, the plaintiffs the Frank case unquestionably have standing pursue claim for injunctive relief under Section and only one plaintiff with standing needed. See Crawford, 472 F.3d 951. Nonetheless, because one more the plaintiffs with standing might drop out this case before finally resolved, will determine whether all four the LULAC plaintiffs have standing seek injunctive relief under Section 
The defendants argue that the LULAC plaintiffs lack Article III standing and also lack what known statutory standing. will begin with Article III standing, which requires plaintiff show that she has suffered injury fact that fairly traceable the challenged acts the defendant and that likely redressed favorable judicial decision. See, e.g., Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56061 (1992). Each element standing must supported the same way any other matter which the plaintiff bears the burden proof, i.e., with the manner and degree evidence required the successive stages the litigation. Id. 561. are the trial stage this case, and the elements standing must supported the evidence adduced trial. Id. 
The only element Article III standing that dispute whether the LULAC plaintiffs have suffered injury fact. For this reason, will not discuss the traceability redressability elements. 
The LULAC plaintiffs contend that they have established standing two ways. First, they contend that they have standing seek redress for their own injuries. Second, they contend that they have associational standing, which allows organizational plaintiff bring suit redress injury suffered one more its members, even the organization itself has not been injured. See, e.g., Hunt Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). 
Turning first the question whether the LULAC plaintiffs have suffered their own injuries, conclude that they have. well-established that organization suffers cognizable injury fact when devotes resources, however minimal, dealing with effects law that are adverse its interests. See, e.g., Havens Realty Corp. Coleman, 455 
U.S. 363, 379 (1982); Crawford, 472 F.3d 951. find based the evidence adduced trial that all four LULAC plaintiffs have devoted resources dealing with the effects Act and would devote additional resources dealing with those effects the state-court injunctions were lifted. Each plaintiff devoted resources educating its members and others whose interests serves about the law and helping individuals obtain qualifying forms photo ID, and each plaintiff would again Act were reinstated. Tr. 14649, 18588 (LULAC); Tr. 375, 386 (Cross Lutheran Church); Tr. 34347, 35758 (Milwaukee Area Labor Council); Tr. 48992, 51920 (Wisconsin League Young Voters). Accordingly, all four plaintiffs have standing seek injunctive relief redress their own injuries. The defendants advance two reasons why the LULAC plaintiffs not have standing their own right. First, relying case from the Fifth Circuit, the defendants point out that not every diversion resources establishes injury fact. See NAACP City Kyle, Texas, 626 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 2010). But Kyle does not suggest that the diversion resources demonstrated the plaintiffs this case fails qualify injury fact. The resources found insufficient that case were resources spent litigating the very claim issue the suit.22 Id. 238. the present case, plaintiff claiming litigation expenses injury fact. Rather, they point resources expended educating their members and others about the requirements Act and ensuring that those members and others obtain forms identification that would allow them vote. This precisely the kind expenditure resources that the Seventh Circuit deemed sufficient support standing Crawford, 472 F.3d 951. 
Second, the defendants contend that the LULAC plaintiffs lack standing because they voluntarily spent resources response Act and were not compelled so. This argument, another court has recognized, finds support the law. Florida State Conference N.A.A.C.P. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1166 (11th Cir. 2008). voluntary opposed compelled expenditure resources were insufficient confer standing, then Crawford was wrongly decided, Indianas photo-identification law did not compel the The court also found that although the plaintiffs claimed have spent resources prelitigation activities, they failed prove that they actually expended resources such activities response the challenged law. Kyle, 626 F.3d 23839. The court found the plaintiffs had only conjectured that the absence the law they would have spent their resources elsewhere. Id. 239. the present case, find that the LULAC plaintiffs have shown concretely that but for Act 23, they would have spent their resources elsewhere. 
Democratic Party expend resources getting its supporters the polls.23 Crawford, 472 
F.3d 951. The only support the defendants can find for their argument single sentence Seventh Circuit opinion, which the defendants take out context. The sentence No one has standing object statute that imposes duties strangers. Freedom From Religion Foundation Obama, 641 F.3d 803, 805 (7th Cir. 2011). Taken out context, this sentence implies that person lacks standing challenge statute unless the statute imposes legal duty him her, and that therefore voluntary expenditure resources made response the effects the statute would not qualify injury fact. But the law issue that case was law requiring the President the United States issue each year proclamation designating the first Thursday May National Day Prayer. Id. 805. This law imposed duties anyone other than the President, and addition could not have prompted the plaintiff anyone other than the President expend any resources all, voluntarily not. Thus, placed its proper context, the sentence cited the defendants stands for the simple proposition that person does not have standing challenge law that causes him her injury fact. does not stand for the proposition that voluntary expenditure resources does not qualify injury fact. 
Having found that the LULAC plaintiffs have standing sue redress their own injuries, need not decide whether they also have standing sue behalf their members. However, the event that becomes relevant question appeal, will realize that the opinion Crawford states that the Indiana law compell[ed] the Democratic Party devote resources getting its supporters the polls, but obvious that the opinion was not using compelled the sense required law. The Indiana law did not require the Democratic Party anything. 
determine whether the LULAC plaintiffs also have standing sue behalf their 
members. association has standing bring suit behalf its members when: (1) its members would otherwise have standing sue their own right; (2) the interests seeks protect are germane the association's purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation individual members the lawsuit. Hunt, 432 
U.S. 343. 
With respect the first Hunt element, member one the plaintiffs would have standing his her own right that member suffering injury fact. The defendants argue that the only way member the plaintiffsthat is, individual votercould suffering injury result Act that member currently lacks acceptable form photo and unable obtain acceptable form photo ID. However, the part Act that the plaintiffs challenge the provision requiring voter present photo the polls. the need present such that injures voter and confers standing sue. See Common Cause/Georgia Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 135152 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that [r]equiring registered voter either produce photo identification vote person cast absentee provisional ballot injury sufficient for standing). This means that even those members the plaintiffs who currently possess acceptable form have standing sue. Id. 1352 ([T]he lack acceptable photo identification not necessary challenge statute that requires photo identification vote person.).24 Thus, every member the plaintiff organizations who Wisconsin voter has suffered injury fact. the defendants not dispute that each plaintiff has members who intend also note that IDs expire, and even person currently holds valid ID, Act burdens that person with the obligation keeping valid. vote Wisconsin elections, conclude that all four LULAC plaintiffs have members who 
are injured Act 23. 
Moreover, even the lack acceptable photo were prerequisite standing, least one the LULAC plaintiffs, Cross Lutheran Church, has members who lack such ID. Weddle, African American member the Church, testified trial that she currently does not possess acceptable form photo identification. Tr. 3536. find her testimony credible and conclude that she does not, fact, possess acceptable form photo identification. The defendants contend that Weddle could she tried hard enough obtain acceptable form identification, but this has bearing her standing sue. The premise this lawsuit that voters should not have bear the burdens associated with obtaining and presenting identification order vote. plaintiff who must bear those burdens order vote necessarily injured Act 23, whether not she would successful obtaining and presenting ID. Accordingly, find that Cross Lutheran Church has members who have standing challenge Act the ground that they lack acceptable forms ID.25 
The second Hunt element requires that the lawsuit germane the organizations purpose. find that this lawsuit germane each LULAC plaintiffs purpose. LULACs mission advance the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, housing, health, and civil rights the Hispanic population the United States. Tr. 15859. hard imagine suit that more germane this mission than the present representative Cross Lutheran Church testified that has members besides Weddle who lack acceptable forms identification. Tr. 373. From this testimony, conclude that Weddle not the only member the Church who lacks acceptable identification. 
suit, which seeks remove barrier minority participation the political process and 
thus advance the political influence Hispanics. Cross Lutheran Church believes that God requires fight for the civil rights its members. Tr. 36566, 37778. Again, hard imagine suit that more germane this purpose than the present suit. One the purposes the Milwaukee Area Labor Council [t]o organize for social and economic justice, propose and support legislation that beneficial working families, and oppose legislation that harms working people. Tr. 34243. Again, the present suit germane this purpose. Finally, this lawsuit obviously germane one the purposes the League Young Voters Education Fund, which encourage young people color vote. Tr. 518. 
The third Hunt element asks whether the claim asserted the relief requested requires the participation the organizations members the lawsuit. conclude that the participation members not required. The claims were tried without substantial participation the plaintiffs members, and nothing about the relief requestedan injunctionrequires their participation. Accordingly, this element satisfied. 
Having concluded that the four LULAC plaintiffs have Article III standing, turn the defendants remaining standing argument, which that the plaintiffs lack statutory standing. noted prior opinion, LULAC ECF No. 84, statutory standing not matter standing the Article III sense but question substantive law. The question whether the statute under which the plaintiffs sue, here Section the Voting Rights Act, authorizes the plaintiffs sue. See Steel Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, (1998). 
With respect that question, Section allows suits instituted aggrieved 
person[s]. See U.S.C.  1973a. The Supreme Court has determined that similar 
language Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964 incorporates the zone interests test. Thompson North American Stainless, LP, U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 863, 870 (2011). Under this test, plaintiff may not sue unless falls within the zone interests sought protected the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint. Id. 870. The test denies right sue where the plaintiff's interests are marginally related inconsistent with the purposes implicit the statute that cannot reasonably assumed that Congress intended permit the suit. Id. (quoting Clarke Sec. Indus. Assn, 479 U.S. 388, 399400 (1987)). 
The defendants contend that only individuals seeking enforce their right vote are within the zone interests Section and that organizations seeking protect the voting rights individuals are not within the zone interests. disagree. The word person act Congress presumed include organizations, see U.S.C.  and thus the text the statute does not suggest that cause action under Section limited individuals. Moreover, the Senate Report the bill that added the aggrieved persons language the Voting Rights Act confirms that Congress intended confer right sue organizations seeking protect the voting rights their members and others. See Rep. No. 94-295, (1975), reprinted 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 774, 80607 (An aggrieved person any person injured act discrimination. may individual organization representing the interests injured persons.). The evidence adduced trial establishes that all four LULAC plaintiffs are organizations representing the interests individuals whose voting rights are burdened Act 23. Therefore, find that all four LULAC plaintiffs fall within the zone interests Section and are aggrieved persons within the meaning Section support their argument that the plaintiffs are not aggrieved persons, the defendants cite Roberts Wamser, 883 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 1989), and various district court cases that rely Roberts.26 Roberts, the Eighth Circuit held that an unsuccessful candidate attempting challenge election results does not have standing under the Voting Rights Act. 883 F.2d 621. Neither this holding nor the reasoning that led supports the defendants argument that organizations representing the interests injured voters cannot aggrieved persons under Section fact, the Eighth Circuit implied that had the plaintiff Roberts been suing protect the rights other voters, would have been aggrieved person. Id. (Nor does Roberts allege that suing behalf persons who are unable protect their own rights.). Accordingly, the defendants reliance Roberts and the district court cases decided its wake misplaced. sum, find that all four LULAC plaintiffs have Article III standing two ways: they have standing seek redress for their own injuries and also associational standing. also find that all four plaintiffs have statutory standing. Merits 
Section the Voting Rights Act prohibits states from imposing applying any voting qualification prerequisite voting standard, practice, procedure that results denial abridgement the right any citizen the United States vote account race color. U.S.C.  1973(a). prove Section violation, plaintiff does not The defendants cite one district court case that does not rely Roberts, AssaadFaltas South Carolina, 2012 6103204 (D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2012), but cannot see any way which that case supports the defendants argument, will not discuss further. 
need prove discriminatory intent. See Chisom Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 394 n.21 
(1991). Rather, Section violation established if, based the totality circumstances, shown that the political processes leading nomination election the State political subdivision are not equally open participation members class citizens protected [ 1973(a)] that its members have less opportunity than other members the electorate participate the political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C.  1973(b). the present case, the plaintiffs claim that the requirement show photo voting practice that results Blacks and Latinos having less opportunity participate the political process and elect representatives their choice. 
Before going further, must determine how apply Section the context challenge voting practice like the requirement present photo the polls. Much the Section jurisprudence was developed the context so-called vote dilution cases. The term vote dilutionwhich contrasted with the term vote denialdescribes cases involving structural devices, such at-large elections and redistricting plans, that can used minimize cancel out the effect minority votes. At-large elections can used minimize cancel out the effect minority votes because they submerge minority group that would likely constitute majority single-member district within larger white majority. Redistricting plans can used minimize cancel out the effect minority votes because they scatter minority voting bloc that would likely constitute majority properly drawn district among several irregular districts, with the result that the minority voting bloc within any single district too small constitute majority. The present case does not involve at-large elections, redistricting plans, similar structural devices, and 
the legal standards developed for dealing with those devices not necessarily apply here. 
For example, the so-called Senate factors Gingles factors, see Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. (1978), play central role vote-dilution cases. However, those factors were developed assist courts resolving the tension between, the one hand, ensuring that structural practices such at-large elections and redistricting plans are not used dilute minority voting power, and, the other, the Congressional directive that Section does not require proportional representation. See Baird City Indianapolis, 976 F.2d 357, 359 (7th Cir. 1992); Daniel Tokaji, The New Vote Denial: Where Election Reform Meets the Voting Rights Act, S.C. Rev. 689, 722 (2006). Factors developed for this purpose are not necessarily relevant cases, like this one, that not present that tension, and any event the federal courts have largely disregarded the Senate factors Section cases that not involve challenges at-large elections, redistricting plans, and the like. See Tokaji, supra, 72021 (arguing that the Senate factors not help courts decide cases that not involve vote dilution and observing that the lower courts have mostly disregarded those factors vote-denial cases). Thus, cannot resolve the present issue applying the legal standards developed for vote-dilution cases.27 
Although the vast majority Section cases involve vote dilution, appellate courts have extensively discussed Section the context felon disenfranchisement, which does not involve vote dilution and falls into the category vote denial. See, e.g., Farrakhan Gregoire, 623 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); Simmons Galvin, 575 F.3d (1st Cir. 2009); Hayden Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006) (en banc); Johnson The defendants agree that the Senate factors are designed for vote-dilution cases and that they should not applied the present case. Defs. Post-Trial Br. 4850. Governor Florida, 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, the consensus that has emerged those cases that laws disenfranchising felons not violate Section because those laws existed when the Voting Rights Act was enacted 1965 and the legislative history the Act supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend invalidate them. See, e.g., Farrakhan, 623 F.3d 993 (finding that [f]elon disenfranchisement laws have long history the United States, and that Congress was doubt aware these laws when enacted the VRA 1965 and amended 1982, yet gave indication that felon disenfranchisement was any way suspect). This reasoning obviously does not apply voter photo identification requirements, which are recent phenomenon. See Kathleen Stoughton, New Approach Voter Challenges: Section the Voting Rights Act, Geo. Wash. Rev. 292, 29698 (2013) (describing history voter legislation, which begins the year 2000). Thus, the felon-disenfranchisement cases are not helpful. 
Because the cases contain only limited guidance,28 will focus the text the statute. See Gonzalez City Aurora, 535 F.3d 594, 597 (7th Cir. 2008) (emphasizing the importance considering the text Section 2). The key language states that violation Section established the totality the circumstances shows that the challenged voting practice results political process that not equally open participation members [of minority group], that the members that group have less opportunity than other members the electorate participate the political process and elect There one appellate case applying Section the photo context, Gonzalez Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). However, that case does not set out comprehensive test governing Section photo cases. representatives their choice. U.S.C.  1973(b). The meaning this language clear: 
Section requires