`
`
`
` Cite as: 586 U. S. ____ (2018)
`
` GINSBURG, J., dissenting
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`No. 18A335
`_________________
`
` RICHARD BRAKEBILL, ET AL. v. ALVIN JAEGER,
`
` NORTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF STATE
`
`
`
`ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
`
` [October 9, 2018]
`
` The application to vacate the stay entered by the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Septem-
`ber 24, 2018, presented to JUSTICE GORSUCH and by him
`
` referred to the Court, is denied. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH took
`
`no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
`JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins,
`
`dissenting from denial of the application to vacate stay.
`
`I would grant the application to vacate the Eighth Cir-
`
`cuit’s stay because last-minute “[c]ourt orders affecting
`
`elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves
`
`result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to
`
`remain away from the polls.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549
`
`U. S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). The risk of voter confu-
`sion appears severe here because the injunction against
`requiring residential-address identification was in force
`
`during the primary election and because the Secretary of
`State’s website announced for months the ID require-
`ments as they existed under that injunction. Reasonable
`
`voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote
`in the primary election would remain valid in the general
`election. If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the
`risk of disfranchisement is large. The Eighth Circuit
`observed that voters have a month to “adapt” to the new
`regime. But that observation overlooks specific factfind-
`ings by the District Court: (1) 70,000 North Dakota resi-
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
` BRAKEBILL v. JAEGER
`
` GINSBURG, J., dissenting
`
`
`
`dents—almost 20% of the turnout in a regular quadren-
`
` nial election—lack a qualifying ID; and (2) approximately
`
`18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental
`documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a
`qualifying ID. Although the unchallenged portion of the
`
`injunction permitting the use of more informal supple-
`mental documents somewhat lessens this concern, that
`relief, by itself, scarcely cures the problem given the all too
`real risk of grand-scale voter confusion. True, an order by
`
`this Court vacating the stay would be yet another decision
`that disrupts the status quo as the election draws ever
`
`closer. But the confusion arising from vacating the stay
`
`would at most lead to voters securing an additional form of
`ID. That inconvenience pales in comparison to the confu-
`sion caused by the Eighth Circuit’s order, which may lead
`
`to voters finding out at the polling place that they cannot
`vote because their formerly valid ID is now insufficient.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
