Carey, Timothy et al v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al

On July 22, 2022, Timothy Carey, Martha Chambers, Scott Luber, and Michael Reece (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Douglas M. Poland of Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Wisconsin Elections Commission and Meagan Wolfe (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for an alleged civil rights violation. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, with Judge Stephen L. Crocker presiding. 

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, “Plaintiffs, all of whom are Wisconsin voters with disabilities, seek declaratory and emergent injunctive relief against Defendants’ administration of elections in any manner that does not permit disabled voters to receive third-party assistance in returning properly marked absentee ballots.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs explained, “In general, Wisconsinites may vote in one of two ways: in person on Election Day or by absentee ballot. [...]  Yet frequently, voters with disabilities are physically incapable of placing an absentee ballot in the mail or returning it in person to the municipal clerk.”

The plaintiffs claimed, “Without ballot-return assistance, many voters with disabilities, including Plaintiffs, would be unable to access Wisconsin’s absentee-voting program, rendering this statutorily provided method of voting unavailable to qualified voters with disabilities, even while it would remain available to other Wisconsin voters.”

The plaintiffs then alleged, “As a result, Teigen’s limitation on ballot-return assistance, combined with Wolfe’s public comments on how WEC will apply Teigen to Wisconsin elections, falls unequally and unlawfully on Wisconsin voters with disabilities, like Plaintiffs. They can no longer fully participate in Wisconsin’s absentee-voting system because their only means of doing so is now illegal.”

The plaintiffs further alleged, “Federal law guarantees that voters with disabilities enjoy full and equal access to state voting programs and thus that they are entitled to ballot-return assistance. And when a state makes it impossible for some voters with disabilities to vote at all, it violates the U.S. Constitution.”

The plaintiffs additionally alleged, “Now Plaintiffs are faced with an impossible, and unlawful, choice:  abstain from voting altogether or risk that their ballots will be invalidated, or that  their only available method to vote absentee (ballot-return assistance) could subject  them to prosecution. [...] Using ballot-return assistance, as they must, to vote absentee in November will subject Plaintiffs to disproportionate risks, simply because they are voters with disabilities who would like to exercise their precious right to vote.”

The plaintiffs stated four claims for relief, including an alleged undue burden on the right to vote, discrimination, and denial of the right to assistance. In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested a judgment seeking declaratory, temporary and permanent injunctive relief. The plaintiffs also requested an award for costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.