17 F. Supp. 3d 837 - Frank v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The first obstacle to obtaining an ID will be to identify the requirements for obtaining a free state ID card. I am able to summarize the requirements for obtaining an ID because I have access to the Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Code and heard testimony on the topic at trial. A typical voter who needs an ID, however, must educate him or herself on these requirements in some other way. Although this may be easy for some, for others, especially those, with lower levels of education, it will be harder. Moreover, a person who needs to obtain one or more of the required documents to obtain an ID, such as a birth certificate, must determine not only the DMVs documentation requirements, but also the requirements of the agency that issues the missing document. This adds a layer of complexity to the process.... Assuming the person is able to determine what he or she needs to do to obtain an ID, the person must next consider the time and effort involved in actually obtaining the ID. This will involve at least one trip to the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles]. There are 92 DMV service centers in the state. All but two of these close before 5:00 p.m. and only one is open on weekends. So, it is likely that the person will have to take time off from work. The person will either need to use vacation time if it’s available or forego the hourly wages that he or she could have earned in the time it takes to obtain the ID____The person will also have to arrange for transportation. Sin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frank v. Walker

2. “The word “person” in an act of Congress is presumed to include organizations, see 1 U.S.C. § 1 , and thus the text of the statute does not suggest that a cause of action under Section 2 is limited to individuals. Moreover, the Senate Report on the bill that added the “aggrieved persons” language to the Voting Rights Act confirms that Congress intended to confer a right to sue on organizations seeking to protect the voting rights of their members and others. See S.Rep. No. 94-295, at 40 (1976), reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 774, 806-07 (“An ‘aggrieved person’ is any person injured by an act of discrimination. It may be an individual or an organization representing the interests of injured persons.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 186 F. Supp. 3d 958 - One Wisconsin Institute, Inc. v. Nichol

3. “[T]he named Defendants and Defendants’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, or having actual or implicit knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined from conditioning a person’s access to a ballot, either in-person or absentee, on that person’s presenting a form of photo identification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Frank v. Walker