And While You’re at it—I’d Like a Foot Massage, Too

In Griffin v. Roupas, No. 03-3770, 2004 WL 2316663 (7th Cir., Oct. 15, 2004), a group of working mothers sued the state of Illinois in federal court claiming that requiring voting in person was a hardship or a violation of their rights to equal protection and that they should be allowed to vote by absentee ballot.

As an aside, I think that mothers of small children certainly have the freedom to choose to wo rk or to stay at home according to their own circumstances. Every family works differently. But there are a lot of occupations that make voting in person inconvenient. Also, at least working mothers presumably do not have to drag any kids with them to the polls. A stayat- home mom trying to vote her conscience with four kids screaming at different octaves would seem to undermine the legitimacy of her ballot.

In any event, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint because the court was understandably unwilling to judicially mandate blanket absentee voting. The court considered a general “hardship” exemption to be too subjective and stated that unlimited absentee voting was susceptible to fraud, especially in Illinois (think of many dead people voting in Chicago). Also, given the myriad of other types of voters who face obstacles to voting in person, the court held that “working mother” does not define a class that election law singles out for adverse treatment.