Brian Valenti v. CONNIE LAWSON, Indiana Secretary of State, in her official capacity

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 17‐3207
BRIAN VALENTI,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
C ONNIE LAWSON, Indiana Secretary of State, in her official
capacity, et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:15‐cv‐01304‐WTL‐MPB — William T. Lawrence, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED MARCH 30, 2018 — D ECIDED MAY 7, 2018
____________________
Before EASTERBROOK and R OVNER , Circuit Judges, and
G ILBERT , District Judge.*
G ILBERT , District Judge. Plaintiff Brian Valenti is a convict‐
ed felon and registered sex offender. Even though his felony
conviction is predicated on a sexual act with a child victim,
Valenti believes that the state of Indiana is violating his right
* Of the Southern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 9 --

2 No. 17‐3207
to vote by refusing to let him enter a polling site located at a
school. The district court granted summary judgment in fa‐
vor of the state defendants. We affirm.
I
In 1993, Brian Valenti was convicted in California state
court of a “Lewd or Lascivious Act with [a] Child Under 14
Years”—a felony in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 288. He
served ten years in prison for the conviction. Valenti later
moved to Indiana, where he registered as a sex offender. The
state considers Valenti to be a “serious sex offender” because
his offense involved a child victim. Ind. Code § 35‐42‐4‐
14(a)(2). Unsurprisingly, Indiana makes it a felony for these
“serious sex offenders” to knowingly or intentionally enter
school property. Ind. Code § 35‐42‐4‐14(b).
The issue here is that on election days, Valenti’s neigh‐
borhood polling place is on school property: the Blackford
County High School gymnasium, which is about three miles
from Valenti’s home. Indiana allows felons like Valenti to
vote once they are no longer imprisoned. Ind. Code § 3‐7‐13‐
5. But if Valenti intentionally enters the high school grounds
to vote, he commits a felony in violation of § 35‐42‐4‐14(b).
The state—presumably anticipating this dilemma—provides
serious sex offenders with the ability to vote by absentee bal‐
lot instead. Ind. Code § 3‐11‐10‐24(a)(12). Indiana also per‐
mits Valenti to vote (1) at the county courthouse 500 yards
from his home at least one day before the election, and (2) on
election days at a civic center about 12 miles away from his
home.
But that is not enough for Valenti: he argues that Indiana
is violating his constitutional right to vote under the First

-- 2 of 9 --

No. 17‐3207 3
and Fourteenth Amendments by banning him from the poll‐
ing site at Blackford County High School. So he brought this
as‐applied challenge for declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Indiana Secretary of State, the individual mem‐
bers of the Indiana Election Commission, the Superintendent
of the Indiana State Police, and the Blackford County Prose‐
cutor, all in their official capacities.
In short, Valenti believes that the three alternative meth‐
ods of voting that Indiana provides are vastly inferior to vot‐
ing at the local high school. First, he considers voting to be a
celebration of his American rights, and he wants to engage
in that celebration with his closest neighbors at his neigh‐
borhood polling place. Next, most of the local candidates go
to the high school—not the civic center 12 miles away—and
Valenti wants the chance to engage with them before voting.
Third, he believes that the absentee ballot process is riddled
with flaws that may lead to his vote not counting. And final‐
ly, he asserts that if he must vote early by absentee ballot or
at the county courthouse, he will miss out on the “late‐
breaking news” that is so pervasive in today’s 24‐hour news
cycle.
The parties filed cross‐motions for summary judgment
below. The district court entered judgment in favor of the
state defendants, holding that under the flexible balancing
test mandated in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S. Ct.
2059, 119 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1992) and its progeny, the state’s in‐
terest in preventing serious sex offenders from entering
school property outweighed the minimal burden on Valen‐
ti’s rights—especially considering the ample alternative
methods of voting available to Valenti. Valenti now appeals.

-- 3 of 9 --

4 No. 17‐3207
II
We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or
deny summary judgment to a party. C.G. Schmidt, Inc. v.
Permasteelisa N. Am., 825 F.3d 801, 805 (7th Cir. 2016). When
reviewing cross‐motions for summary judgment, “all rea‐
sonable inferences are drawn in favor of the party against
whom the motion at issue was made.” Tripp v. Scholz, 872
F.3d 857, 862 (7th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment is appro‐
priate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Dunn v. Menard, Inc., 880 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Cir. 2018).
III
The district court was correct to enter judgment in favor
of the defendants in this case, but it did so for the wrong rea‐
sons. Contrary to the assertions of both parties, this case
does not implicate Valenti’s constitutional right to vote un‐
der the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This is because
Valenti does not even have a constitutional right to vote: it is
well established that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amend‐
ment gives states the “affirmative sanction” to exclude felons
from the franchise. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 54
(1974); see also Parker v. Lyons, 757 F.3d 701, 707 (7th Cir.
2014) (“[t]he Supreme Court has held that states may de‐
prive convicted felons of the right to vote….”). And Indiana
chooses to disenfranchise convicted felons who are impris‐
oned following conviction. Ind. Code § 3‐7‐13‐4(a); Ind.
Const. art. II, § 8. Indiana permits felons to vote once they
are no longer imprisoned, Ind. Code § 3‐7‐13‐5, but this stat‐
utory right is not without restrictions: for example, serious
sex offenders cannot enter school grounds to vote and must

-- 4 of 9 --

No. 17‐3207 5
use an alternative method instead, such as an absentee bal‐
lot. Ind. Code § 35‐42‐4‐14(b); Ind. Code § 3‐11‐10‐24(a)(12).
Accordingly, Valenti only has a statutory right to vote
here, not a constitutional right. And since the Indiana statute
does not infringe on any fundamental right or suspect class,
it only requires rational basis review—not something higher,
like the constitutional balancing test seen in Burdick, supra.
Segovia v. United States, 880 F.3d 384, 390 (7th Cir. 2018) (cit‐
ing Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673, 132 S.Ct. 2073,
2080, 182 L.Ed.2d 998 (2012)); see also Srail v. Vill. of Lisle, Ill.,
588 F.3d 940, 943 (7th Cir. 2009) (“In the absence of depriva‐
tion of a fundamental right or the existence of a suspect
class, the proper standard of review is rational basis.”) (in‐
ternal citation omitted).
The Indiana statute survives rational basis review if there
is a “rational relationship between the law and some legiti‐
mate governmental purpose.” Segovia, 880 F.3d at 390; Heller
v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257
(1993). This standard is very deferential to the state: we must
uphold the statute “even if it is unwise, improvident, or out
of harmony with a particular school of thought.” Goodpaster
v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060, 1071 (7th Cir. 2013) (cit‐
ing Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483,
488, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). To win, Valenti must negate “every con‐
ceivable basis which might support [the statute].ʺ FCC v.
Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S.Ct. 2096,
124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). This is a “notoriously heavy legal
lift” for a plaintiff. Monarch Beverage Co. v. Cook, 861 F.3d 678,
681 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Indiana Petroleum Marketers &

-- 5 of 9 --

6 No. 17‐3207
Convenience Store Assʹn v. Cook, 808 F.3d 318, 322 (7th Cir.
2015)).
Valenti cannot meet this high burden. First of all, Indiana
has offered a legitimate purpose for the statute: to keep seri‐
ous sex offenders away from schools, where they could prey
on children. Sex offenders are a “serious threat” with a
“frighteningly high” risk of recidivism, so Indiana’s stated
purpose is quite legitimate—especially considering that “the
victims of sexual assault are most often juveniles.” McKune
v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2024, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47
(2002). Moreover, there is a rational relationship between In‐
diana’s stated purpose and Ind. Code § 35‐42‐4‐14(b): the
statute does not ban all sex offenders from the school
grounds, but instead bans “serious” sex offenders—sexually
violent predators or those who have committed sex crimes
against children.
Indiana’s position is an iron‐clad fortress in light of the
rational basis test. Valenti tries to lay siege to the fortress,
but his cannons are full of feathers. His first barrage is tar‐
geted at Indiana’s stated purpose and grounded in the Su‐
preme Court’s recent holding in Packingham v. North Caroli‐
na, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (U.S. 2017). Packingham
involved a First Amendment challenge to a North Carolina
statute that prohibited all sex offenders from accessing social
media websites. The Supreme Court found the statute over‐
broad, considering it would sweep in and suppress lawful
speech in its mission to hunt and destroy unlawful speech.
Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1738 (citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 255, 122 S. Ct. 1389, 1404, 152 L. Ed. 2d
403 (2002)). That is quite different from Valenti’s case: the
Indiana statute narrowly bans serious sex offenders from en‐

-- 6 of 9 --

No. 17‐3207 7
tering school property, a place where they could come into
direct physical contact with children. Valenti also fires at the
state’s purpose by citing to a Sixth Circuit case that questions
whether sex offenders really are more likely to recidivate
than other types of criminals, Does #1‐5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d
696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016), rehʹg denied (Sept. 15, 2016), cert. de‐
nied sub nom. Snyder v. John Does #£1‐5, 138 S. Ct. 55, 199 L.
Ed. 2d 18 (2017), but it is not our place to engage in a thor‐
ough statistical analysis on rational basis review. We must
uphold the statute “even if it is unwise, improvident, or out
of harmony with a particular school of thought.” Goodpaster,
736 F.3d at 1071. And even if it was our place, the record in
this case is devoid of any statistical evidence.
Valenti also complains about the many alternative meth‐
ods of voting that Indiana provides to him, even though the
state is under no obligation to give him any alternatives at
all given his status as a felon. Richardson, 418 U.S. at 54, 94
S.Ct. 2655. If Valenti votes by mail, he laments that it is easy
to make mistakes on the absentee ballot and that he will not
be able to consider late‐breaking political news when voting.
See Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128, 1131 (7th Cir. 2004) (ex‐
plaining some of the difficulties with casting an absentee bal‐
lot). If Valenti instead votes at the county courthouse at least
24 hours before election day—where officials could help him
fill out his ballot error‐free—he still protests that he will miss
out on election‐day news. And if Valenti votes on election
days at the civic center 12 miles away—where he could re‐
fresh his Twitter feed and wait until the minute before the
polls close before casting his vote—he gripes that the state is
banishing him from his neighborhood polling place, mean‐
ing that he cannot meet with more local candidates and learn
the politics of his neighbors. Valenti believes that the state is

-- 7 of 9 --

8 No. 17‐3207
therefore depriving him of the associational and expression‐
al opportunities that come along with voting.
Valenti’s arguments are not even remotely persuasive
given the ample alternatives that Indiana provides to him,
especially considering the state is not required to offer any
alternatives at all. Valenti’s argument about wanting to learn
the politics of his neighbors and the local candidates at the
polling place is especially odd, given the fact that Ind. Code
§ 3–14–3–16(b) makes it a crime for any person to knowingly
electioneer within the polls and within 50 feet of the en‐
trance to the polls.
Valenti also relies on three cases outside of this circuit in
support of his position, but these cases are inapposite be‐
cause they dealt with challenges to the fundamental right to
vote—not to any statutory right, as here. One case held that
voting by absentee ballot was not an acceptable substitute
for voting in‐person for many African Americans impacted
by Texas’s voter identification laws, because “[f]or some Af‐
rican‐Americans, [voting together at the polls] is a strong
tradition—a celebration—to overcoming obstacles to the
right to vote.” Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 676 (S.D.
Tex. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds, and rev’d in part on
other grounds sub nom. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir.
2016) (en banc). The other two cases center on disabled
Americans who could not physically access their neighbor‐
hood polling places. Disabled in Action v. Board of Elections in
City of New York, 752 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014); Kerrigan v. Phil‐
adelphia Bd. Of Election, No. CIV. A. 07‐687, 2008 WL 3562521
(E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2008).
Besides the fact that Veasey, Disabled in Action, and Kerri‐
gan did not consider a rational basis challenge to a statutory

-- 8 of 9 --

No. 17‐3207 9
right, they do not apply to this case for another salient rea‐
son. Those cases obliterated voting burdens that unduly en‐
cumber those with certain immutable characteristics: race
and disability. Valenti’s situation is quite different: commit‐
ting a “Lewd or Lascivious Act with [a] Child Under 14
Years” is not an immutable characteristic. Rather, it is a vol‐
untary act against a child victim that the state has lawfully
circumscribed.
IV
There is no doubt here that Indiana has demonstrated a
rational relationship between Ind. Code § 35‐42‐4‐14(b) and
their stated purpose of keeping serious sex offenders away
from children on school property. For the foregoing reasons,
we must uphold the statute and the district court’s entry of
judgment in favor of the state defendants.
A FFIRMED

-- 9 of 9 --