Laramie attorneys launch lawsuit against state voter ID law

Tim Newcomb and Charles Pelkey are asking the court to enjoin the law before voters head to the polls for this summer’s primaries. The law is meant to stop voter fraud, an ‘exceedingly rare’ crime.

Two Laramie attorneys are suing the state of Wyoming over its new voter ID law, asking the court to stop the law from going into effect this summer.

The State Legislature passed the new law in 2021, and it technically went into effect last summer. But Wyoming residents will likely feel the effects of the law for the first time this year — as they head to the polls in August and November to decide local representation, all five statewide offices and the winner of what’s already a heated U.S. House race.

The lawsuit was filed in Albany County District Court Wednesday.

Laramie attorney Tim Newcomb argues in the suit that voting is a sacred right and should not be infringed lightly. Newcomb argues the state must show a “compelling need” for such a law, and that the state is required to construct the law in a way that doesn’t excessively infringe on the rights of citizens.

The voter ID law fails on both counts, the lawsuit alleges.

Charles Pelkey, another local attorney and former state legislator, is representing Newcomb.

“If you look at the Wyoming state constitution, you have to have a seriously justifiable reason to further restrict access to the ballot,” Pelkey said. “No one who supported that bill ever provided evidence that we have voter fraud in the state of Wyoming.”

This is consistent with national reports and investigations on the issue of voter fraud, which have repeatedly demonstrated that voter fraud is “exceedingly rare and often accidental.”

Even if the state of Wyoming demonstrated a need for a voter ID law by finding examples of fraud, Newcomb argues that the new law, as written, is disproportionate – threatening the rights of countless Wyomingites in an attempt to stop those rare occurrences of fraud.

That’s because Wyoming voters must already show their ID when registering to vote. The new law requires them to produce the ID again at the polls.

“Wyoming’s got one of the most wonderful systems in the world,” Pelkey said. “We have early voting. We have a system which requires voter ID for ballot access in the first place, but at registration — and we’re not challenging that. But we are challenging further restrictions being imposed.”

The lawsuit even proposes an alternative that, it argues, would be less intrusive.

“This is not the last century,” the lawsuit states. “The government needs to show why the first acceptable photo ID cannot display automatically to the poll workers when people vote, so voters can be welcomed and thanked for voting — rather than challenged. Voters and juries should be thanked for their service to our state and nation.”

Newcomb’s lawsuit cites sections of the Wyoming Constitution that enumerate the rights of citizens.

“Elections shall be open, free and equal, and no power civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent an untrammeled exercise of the right of suffrage,” the lawsuit states, quoting directly from Article 1, Section 27 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Nevertheless, the state might have a compelling interest in securing fraud-free elections, so Newcomb’s lawsuit cites 1995 Wyoming case law highlighting how the court should balance citizen rights against state interests.

“‘Strict scrutiny’ is the standard applied when it becomes necessary to balance a fundamental right against a compelling state interest,’” the lawsuit quotes. “‘It requires the establishment of the compelling state interest and the showing that the method of achieving such is the least intrusive of those methods by which such can be accomplished.’”

The lawsuit asks the court to enjoin the law. If that injunctive relief is granted and in place during the primary election this summer, voters would not have to produce identification at their polling place.

“Fundamentally, we’re saying that any further restrictions of voter access to the ballot are unconstitutional,” Pelkey said. “Even if it’s one voter who can’t exercise his or her right to access the ballot, it’s a violation of the constitution.”

‘The right to be left alone’

In addition to the right to vote, citizens have a right to privacy, the lawsuit argues. While “the right to be left alone” is not enumerated among the other rights in the Wyoming or U.S. Constitutions, it could nonetheless be considered a right held by citizens. Some rights are listed in the state or federal constitutions, others are not, but the lawsuit cites more Wyoming case law showing that some natural rights held by citizens are purposefully not written down. This is done so as to not imply that other unlisted rights are denied.

In essence, a constitution can’t cover everything. So just because a right is listed, or enumerated, in the state constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a natural right humans possess, the lawsuit argues. In fact, it says, the constitution itself recognizes this and forbids the denial of unenumerated rights.

“Section 36 of the Wyoming Constitution expressly instructs the Court not to deny, impair or disparage the unenumerated rights retained by people,” the lawsuit argues.

The suit alleges that the new voter ID law would do just this by unjustly interfering with voters’ right to privacy.

How your local lawmakers voted on voter ID

Laramie Sen. Chris Rothfuss (SD-09) was outspoken against the voter ID bill in 2021 as it worked its way through the State House and then the State Senate.

"We're going to reduce voter participation in a way that will, again, disproportionately affect certain demographics," Rothfuss said. "I don't think that's good for democracy. I don't think that's good for our system. I don't think that's the state of Wyoming."

The Albany County legislative delegation was split along party lines.

Laramie’s other senator, Dan Furphy (SD-10), voted alongside nearly all the Republicans in the Wyoming Legislature to support requiring ID at the polls.

Among local legislators in the House, Rep. Cathy Connolly (HD-13), Rep. Trey Sherwood (HD-14), and Rep. Karlee Provenza (HD-45) opposed the bill. Rep. Ocean Andrew (HD-46) supported it.