## Facts

- The Wisconsin Constitution (art. III) sets voter qualifications (e.g., citizenship, age, residency) and authorizes the legislature to provide for voter registration and to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process.
- 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 required in-person voters to present one of several specified forms of government-issued photo identification to receive a regular ballot, with related procedures and exceptions (including options tied to provisional voting and obtaining identification).
- The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network and its president brought a facial challenge under the Wisconsin Constitution, alleging the photo ID requirement operated as an unconstitutional additional qualification to vote.
- State officials and supporting intervenors argued Act 23 was a reasonable election-administration measure to verify voter identity and eligibility, modernize procedures, increase confidence, and deter fraud.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement, concluding the law imposed an additional voting qualification.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the requirement was a permissible regulation.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 23’s in-person photo ID requirement is facially an unconstitutional additional qualification to vote beyond those listed in Wisconsin Constitution article III.
2. Whether the legislature exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate elections and strengthen electoral integrity by conditioning ballot access on presentation of Act 23-compliant identification.
3. What burden plaintiffs must meet to succeed on a facial constitutional challenge to an election law.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and upheld Act 23 against the facial challenge.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to show the photo ID requirement is, on its face, an additional constitutional qualification for voting.
- The court concluded Act 23 was enacted within the legislature’s authority to regulate elections and strengthen the integrity of the electoral process.
- The court characterized the photo ID requirement as a reasonable regulatory measure aimed at verifying identity/eligibility and improving election administration.
- A concurrence agreed the law was facially valid under article III while cautioning that different facts could support as-applied challenges.
- A dissent would have held the law effectively added a qualification—possession of specified photo identification—and impermissibly burdened the right to vote.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional “qualifications” for voting are distinct from legislative “regulations” that govern election administration and verification of voter eligibility.
- Under Wisconsin Constitution article III, the legislature may enact reasonable election regulations to strengthen electoral integrity, including procedures to verify voter identity, so long as they do not add substantive voting qualifications.
- A facial challenge imposes a heavy burden: the challenger must show the law is unconstitutional in all, or virtually all, of its applications.
- A photo ID requirement may be treated as a verification mechanism rather than a new qualification when framed as a procedural method to confirm that electors meet existing constitutional criteria.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin Act 23’s in-person voter photo ID requirement as a constitutionally permissible election regulation under article III, rejecting a facial claim that the law added an extra qualification to vote and finding the legislature acted within its authority to protect electoral integrity.


League of Women Voters of Wis. Educ. Network, Inc. v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 302 (Wis. 2014)