A Wyoming voting rights group filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging the constitutionality of the state’s new voter registration requirements.
Set to go into effect in July, the law requires a person to provide proof of state residency and U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. It represented a key priority of the further-right wing of the Wyoming Legislature and Secretary of State Chuck Gray.
The law, however, will impose an undue burden on the right to vote — particularly for women as well as Hispanic, young and low-income voters — and is unconstitutionally vague as written, according to the complaint filed by Equality State Policy Center in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming.
“Wyoming has a proud tradition of fair and secure elections, and there is no evidence of non-citizen voting or widespread fraud to justify the harsh new restrictions,” policy center Executive Director Jenny DeSarro said in a statement.
There have been four convictions of voter fraud in Wyoming since 2000, according to a database created by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. All four cases involved U.S. citizens.
Supporters of the new law, including Gray, maintain it is needed to ensure that only Wyoming residents vote in Wyoming elections. In February, the Wyoming Legislature passed House Bill 156, “Proof of voter residency-registration qualifications,” before Gov. Mark Gordon let it become law without his signature.
Gillette Republican and former Wyoming Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. John Bear was the lead sponsor of the bill.
“The people of Wyoming overwhelmingly support this no-brainer law, and rightfully expect the attorney general to vigorously defend it in court,” the Freedom Caucus posted Monday on Facebook.
The suit names Gray and each of the state’s 23 county clerks in their official capacities as defendants.
“Proof of citizenship and proof of residency are common sense, conservative measures pivotal to election integrity, which is why house Bill 156 was the number one priority of our conservative election integrity agenda during the 2025 Legislative Session,” Gray said in a press release.
“I will be vigorously defending Wyoming’s proof of citizenship and residency requirements. We will fight this lawsuit and the false claims in it. And we will win.”
The law specifies what documents provide proof of residency and citizenship, but leaves the secretary of state’s office to iron out the technicalities through the rulemaking process. That requires a public comment period, which is currently open.
Undue burden
In many instances, a valid Wyoming driver’s license will suffice for proof of identity, residency and U.S. citizenship under the new law. Under the rules now being proposed by Gray, those documents will work so long as they list a Wyoming address.
But the process won’t be so simple for other voters, the complaint argues.
“This is particularly true for young, low-income, and already underrepresented voters,” the suit states. “Many more do not have documents that match their current name—including women who changed their names after marriage.”
And obtaining such documentation will “require navigating a labyrinth of bureaucracy, all with attendant costs and delays, while election day draws nearer.”
Others still, the complaint argues, won’t realize they need such documentation “until it is too late and will be disenfranchised altogether.”
The suit points to voters who may think they are still registered despite “Wyoming’s uniquely aggressive voter list maintenance.”
Around this time last year, for example, more than 83,000 Wyoming registered voters were purged for not having voted in the most recent election — accounting for a roughly 28% drop in the state’s registered voters.
Plus, there may be added confusion since the state “allows a much wider range of documents to prove identity to satisfy its voter ID law” as compared to its new proof of residency and citizenship laws, “including student IDs, Medicaid insurance card, even Wyoming concealed firearm permits,” according to the complaint.
Altogether, the new law “favors people who have lived in the same place, with the name they were given at birth, and have a safe and stable place to store their sensitive documents,” the plaintiffs argue.
“But many citizens, who are no less entitled to vote, do not enjoy these conditions.”
Constitutional vagueness
The plaintiffs also argue the new law is unconstitutionally vague as written, which was a concern shared by Gordon when he allowed the bill to become law without his signature.
In particular, Gordon pointed to a section of the new law that instructs county clerks to accept a prospective voter’s proof of citizenship so long as it does not contain “any indication” that the person is not a U.S. citizen.
“This standard may be difficult for clerks to administer, as it is unclear and perhaps awkward for our county clerks to consistently apply with any degree of certainty,” Gordon wrote in a letter explaining his decision not to sign the bill.
The lawsuit makes a similar point.
Such a standard “both fails to allow persons of ordinary intelligence to anticipate how the law will be enforced and invites arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit also points to other states that have attempted to add proof of residency and citizenship requirements to the voter registration process, including Arizona, Kansas and New Hampshire.
“Other states have tried to impose similar restrictions, and their experience proves that the real effect of the [new law’s] requirements will not be to safeguard Wyoming’s elections from noncitizen voting — a problem that does not exist,” the complaint states. “Instead, the new restrictions will exclude citizens from the electoral process.”
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl, according to the case docket.
First, let’s be clear…. The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA Demands that Elections are FREE AND Fair. The freedumb caucus is not about FREEDOM but they sure are DUMB and don’t believe in Truth in ANY form. They want to make it impossible for anyone to vote who don’t agree with them. If they could, they would make it illegal to be a DEMOCRAT and sic ICE on you.
MEMO to Chuck Gray:
The eligibility requirements for voting in Wyoming elections should be:
1. Voter is upright.
2. Voter is drawing breath.
3. Voter has a pulse.
4. Same State age requirements as driver’s license
That should suffice, Chuckie… now go make yourself useful.
Good article Maggie. This statement, common to the “right” when pushing their agenda always gets to me: “The people of Wyoming overwhelmingly support this no-brainer law….”.
I don’t recall a survey, nor do I recall any published proof of these vague attempts to falsely ”assure” the voters that their peers are overwhelming supporting these restrictive burdens.
But, they will keep on trying to push their agenda, and force unneeded legislation on all of us….based on a meager 4 cases of fraud (possibly by their own backers) over several years.
I’d rather see a survey asking if Secretary Gray should be recalled.
It appears that this new law would have prevented Dick Cheney from becoming Vice-President of the U.S. in 2001. Some of your older Wyofile readers may remember that after George W. Bush was nominated as the Republican candidate for President, Cheney was appointed to head a committee to select the best candidate to be Bush’s running mate. In the end, the committee selected Cheney himself. But there was one glitch. From 1993 until 2000, Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton oil service company in Texas and resided in Dallas. But on July 21, 2000 — four days before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate — he flew to Jackson, Wyo., and changed his voter registration to Teton County, Wyoming. He did this because the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would have prohibited the Texas electoral college electors from voting for Texas residents for both president and vice-president. Lawsuits in Texas and Florida challenging the sudden change in voter registration were rejected by the federal courts on grounds, among others, that the challengers had no “standing” to bring their suit. This avoidance of the merits brings to mind the Wyoming Supreme Court decision in the 1972 case Schieck v. Hathaway, 493 P.2d 759, where some Democrats challenged the eligibility of Dean Prosser to be a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives. At the time of the 1970 election, Prosser owned ranchland in both Wyoming and Colorado but resided in a residence located just south of the Wyoming state line. There was no question but that Prosser would have been fully qualified to be a member of the Colorado legislature if he had run in that state. But the Wyoming Supreme Court essentially refused to address that issue, ruling that the Legislature had determined that Prosser was qualified to serve in the Legislature and that was the end of the matter.
I feel that it’s still a law looking for a problem. With very few exceptions, I feel that Wyoming’s elections are very safe and accurate.
I’ll bet the Leftists opposing this bill will next want same day voter registration and/or automatic voter registration when you obtain a driver’s license like some blue states already have. Give a Leftist an inch, and they’ll demand a mile.
I am a legitimate voter in the state I vote in. Also I am a United States citizen, with a social security number, a veteran I.D., a drivers license, a certificate of birth. I want other voters to have a recognition of identity. Equal treatment. Equal legitimacy required. PERIOD
I think this law is more of freedom caucus garbage and more far right fascism. They want to make this a country run by one party and one fascist king the tRump. If there never has been voter fraud in Wyoming why make this worthless law that will cost voters money to get to documents.
I have a constitutional right to vote, not a constitutional right to vote with a valid ID. It should fall on the state to know if I’m an eligible voter or not.
hmmmm … not sure that level of government surveillance is what we want, thinking how that’s turned out for the Chinese Uyghurs anyway.
I have a constitutional right to bare arms, not a right with restrictions… see how that works?
You can wear sleeveless shirts all you want.
Why do you “patriots” want less voter participation?
Born in Nebraska, Raised in Wyoming. NCHS Class of 65. Great law. Wyoming has always been the Equality State. Moved to Maine in 1973 after 7 years in U S Navy. Wish Maine was Red.
What a complete nonsense lawsuit. Having to provide a legitimate ID is not onerous in any way. Getting married or divorced has not ever stopped anyone from voting, nor has being 18 or Hispanic. What a complete crock.
Mr Neilsen, being a male, you never had your name changed upon marriage. So from your perspective coming up with documentation to support your “identity” is no big deal. For married women, adopted children or anyone else that has changed their name from that on their birth record, it means digging up another piece of paper to prove that they are who they say they are. We should be looking at ways to streamline the process and promote getting citizens registered to vote. Not putting road blocks up to a process that should be simple and forthright.
Mr. Peterson, you are right. I am currently waiting on a certified copy of my sister’s marriage license from Johnson county because she took her ex’s name when they were married in 1983. After their divorce he took their marriage certificate with him. Fast forward to 2025 and she goes to get her “real ID” in Oklahoma and finds that she needs proof of her name change. I know this has nothing to do with voting but it’s not much of a stretch to see this same thing happening to women at the polls.
To vote, we already have to show ID, speak our address out loud (because apparently everyone else voting has to hear it) and sign an affidavit. Exactly how much more do they need from us before we can exercise our right to vote?
The new law is meant to scare people off, and given the current restrictions, they are trying to scare away the LEGAL voters.