Wyoming’s new law requiring voters to provide proof of their citizenship and address has withstood an early legal challenge. Last week, a federal judge dismissed a suit from the Equality State Policy Center that sought to block and overturn the new requirements.

Both the Secretary of State’s Office and the Park County Clerk’s Office had asked to have the case dismissed, contending the center didn’t have standing to bring the suit.

In his 17-page decision, District Judge Scott Skavdahl of Casper agreed, finding the Equality State Policy Center (ESPC) had failed to show that it or its members have been or will be injured by House Bill 156.

“The problem for Plaintiff is that while it asserts its members have individual members who are potential Wyoming voters, it has not alleged specific facts that, if taken as true, would show ‘that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm’ from HB 156’s registration requirements,” Skavdahl wrote in part.

The 2025 law says a person must have lived in the state for at least 30 days before becoming eligible to vote and requires “proof of citizenship.” The citizenship requirement can be met with a standard state-issued driver’s license or ID card, along with other documents. The Secretary of State’s Office is tasked with coming up with rules for residency — such as what documents will be required — but the statute also allows voters to sign an attestation that they are a Wyomingite.

The ESPC contends the legislation violates state and federal law and will prevent legitimate Wyoming voters from casting ballots. The center’s executive director, Jenny DeSarro of Cody, said in a May statement that “there is no evidence of noncitizen voting or widespread fraud to justify the harsh new restrictions.” DeSarro said the law would create significant barriers, “particularly young voters, women who changed their names when they married, low-income voters, and Hispanic voters.”

However, Secretary of State Chuck Gray contended the requirements are a “common sense, conservative election integrity measure.” Gray’s attorneys said the impact will be minimal, saying the law allows multiple forms of proof and plenty of time before the next election for voters to prepare for the changes.

Defending Park County

The center’s suit not only named Gray as a defendant, but also the state’s 23 county clerks, who administer Wyoming’s elections.

One of the ESPC’s attorneys, Katie Chamblee-Ryan of the D.C.-based Elisa Law, said they named the clerks to ensure their suit could fully block HB 156. However, if the clerks didn’t want to mount their own defense, the plaintiffs offered a “nominal defendants agreement.”

Participating clerks would respond to discovery requests, potentially testify and be bound by any judgments, but they would otherwise agree to stay out of the case and rely on Gray to defend the law.

In exchange, the ESPC agreed that, if the organization prevailed, it would not seek attorneys fees or costs from the clerks who signed the agreement.

“This will protect those Counties against possible significant financial exposure that they otherwise might be vulnerable to” and avoid the expense of participating in the suit, one of the ESPC’s attorneys, Katie Chamblee-Ryan of D.C.-based Elias Law, explained in an email to Park County Attorney Bryan Skoric.

All of the state’s clerks decided to sign the agreement with the center — except for Park County. 

In a filing made this month on behalf of Clerk Colleen Renner, Deputy County Attorney Dustin Slade echoed the arguments made by Gray’s legal team, contending the ESPC lacked the legal standing to bring the suit.

Slade further argued the claims were “unripe.” While the center said it was suing the clerks over the “actions” they’ve taken to enforce the new voting requirements, he said Renner hasn’t taken any such actions.

Overall, Slade made the case that Renner should have never been named as a defendant; he wondered if the clerks were included for “optics and gamesmanship” or “out of a misapprehension of pertinent law.”

Slade said the suit seemed to assume that Renner might defy a future court ruling against the new law. However, he said that assumption was “based in unreasonable conjecture bordering on fantasy.”

Renner signed an affidavit pledging that she would abide by any court order in the case, which rendered her participation moot, Slade said.

Gray’s attorneys joined Park County’s motion, but it ultimately didn’t play into Skavdahl’s decision.

Clerk ‘here to enforce the law’

In an interview, Renner said she didn’t understand why the ESPC brought the clerks into the suit.

“We’re here to enforce the law, not make the laws,” she said.

Renner said she has some sympathy for people who move to Wyoming in the days ahead of an election, as they’ll either be unable to vote or have to try getting a ballot from their previous state.

However, her office plans to work to get the word out about the changes in advance of next year’s election and the secretary of state’s office has pledged it will do so as well.

As far as proving citizenship, “if they have REAL ID, which most states do nowadays, that’s pretty much proving that they’re citizens,” Renner said. She added that the state’s “wonderful” WyoReg software already flags potential noncitizens.

The clerks and secretary of state also noted in the litigation that few problems resulted from the voter ID requirements imposed in 2024.

National involvement

While the fight was over a Wyoming law, the suit involved national politics. The ESPC’s suit was led by the Elias Law Group, which represents Democrats. The firm was founded by Marc Elias, who’s best known for his work on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s and Joe Biden’s presidential campaigns.

And while state officials are typically represented in court by the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office, Gray’s defense was led by outside counsel from the San Francisco-based Dhillon Law Group. The firm’s founder, Harmeet Dhillon, served as a legal adviser to Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign and is now an assistant attorney general in the administration.

Other parties jumped into the case from across the country — with the Republican National Committee and attorneys general from 24 states and Guam plus the Arizona Legislature supporting Wyoming’s law.

Trump’s Department of Justice also announced in early July that it was backing Wyoming’s law, which prompted Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, to write on Facebook that DeSarro and “her east coast flaming liberal counsel should be shaking in their boots.”

Rodriguez-Williams described last week’s ruling as a “major defeat” for “Russia collusion hoaxer Marc Elias and the Equality State Policy Center.”

Gray, meanwhile, called it “a huge victory for the people of Wyoming and for the truth.”

“Marc Elias’ outrageously wrong lawsuit has always been an attempt by the radical Left to undermine the common-sense election integrity measures Wyomingites want,” he said in a statement.

Gray also described the ruling as a “decisive” victory, but it may not be the final word on HB 156: Skavdahl dismissed the case “without prejudice,” which means the center could attempt to address the judge’s concerns and file an amended complaint down the road.

In a statement to WyoFile, a spokesperson for Elias Law Group said they would “keep fighting to make sure that House Bill 156 does not disenfranchise eligible Wyoming voters.”