Wisconsin Voter ID Law "Unconstitutional"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 3:44 AM GMT
    Poor little Scott Wanker...

    Amanda TerkelWASHINGTON -- A Wisconsin judge declared a state law requiring people to show photo ID in order to be allowed to vote unconstitutional on Monday, issuing a permanent injunction blocking the state from implementing the measure.

    "Without question, where it exists, voter fraud corrupts elections and undermines our form of government," wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess in his decision. "The legislature and governor may certainly take aggressive action to prevent its occurrence. But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the monster."

    The decision comes less than a week after another judge temporarily halted the implementation of the voter ID law.

    The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court in October. Lester Pines, an attorney with the firm Cullen Weston Pines & Bach who is working on the case, told The Huffington Post at the time that their argument against the voter ID law was quite simple: It violates the provision in the Wisconsin constitution that determines who can vote.

    Niess agreed with this argument:

    Article III is unambiguous, and means exactly what it says. It creates both necessary and sufficient requirements for qualified voters. Every United States citizen 18 years of age or older who resides in an election district in Wisconsin is a qualified elector in that district, unless excluded by duly enacted laws barring certain convicted felons or adjudicated incompetents/partially incompetents.

    The government may not disqualify an elector who possesses those qualifications on the grounds that the voter does not satisfy additional statutorily-created qualifications not contained in Article III, such as a photo ID.


    He added that a "government that undermines the very foundation of its existence -- the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote -- imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people."


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/wisconsin-voter-id-law-unconstitutional_n_1339830.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 5:33 AM GMT
    If Walker gets booted out of office - this ruling will certainly have been a helpful factor in removing him from office.

    The unconstitutional voter ID law would have prevented some of the folks who want him out from voting.

    Now it's a fair fight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 12:50 PM GMT
    RickRick91 saidIf Walker gets booted out of office - this ruling will certainly have been a helpful factor in removing him from office.

    The unconstitutional voter ID law would have prevented some of the folks who want him out from voting.

    Now it's a fair fight.


    As the saying goes, "when people vote, Democrats win." I'm glad to see that Holder is also suing to stop Texas voter ID law from being implemented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 12:57 PM GMT
    I've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 1:11 PM GMT
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?

    The argument is the poor cannot afford IDs. States have addressed that by providing the IDs for free. Georgia went even further by making available teams to go to homes if that made it more convenient for folks. Makes you wonder the motives for the objections.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 1:24 PM GMT
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 6:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.


    "Voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States", Really? The facts show that it's actually a much bigger problem than most people imagine, but I wouldn't expect you to say so since the Democrat party seems to benefit in most proven cases of voter fraud.

    Maybe , for some reason you aren't aware of these facts that belie the "miniscule problem", as you represent it:

    In the 1996 election in California Democrat Lorretta Sanchez defeated the Republican incumbant by 984 votes. A congressional task force found that at least 784 illegal aliens voted for Ms Sanchez, in one of the most extensively documented cases of illegal voting. The committee pointed out that there was a significant number of "documented aliens" in the INS Records on the Orange County voter registration roles (for the record "documented aliens" are not citizens and therefore unable to vote in the U.S.). The committee also raised the question that if there were such a significant number of legal aliens registered to vote, how many illegal aliens might be registered to vote in Orange County? With only 200 votes determining the winner there is a strong possibility that there were enough "undetected" illegal aliens who contributed to the outcome of the election. The committee also made note of the fact that the California Secretary of State complained INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, no complete check of all the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever carried out.

    After an 18 month investigation into the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election, which incumbant Sen. Norm Coleman lost to Al Franken by 312 votes, it was found that at least 341 convicted felons in mostly Democratic Minneapolis-St Paul illegally voted in the elections. The illegal ballots were counted in the states certified vote. The study matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records. In Ramsey county alone more than 28 people were charged with, felonies, however since the statute of limitations on voter fraud in the state is only two years it's highly likely that majority of the cases were closed without further investigation.

    Testifying before the House Administration Committee in 2011. Scott Gessler, Colorado's Secretary of State, said that after comparing the state voter registration database with driver's license records they identified 12,000 illegal aliens living in Colorado who were registered to vote and 5,000 of these actually cast votes in Colorado's highly contested 2010 election.

    In January of 2002, eight illegal aliens testified in the Compton voter fraud trial that they were recruited to register and vote in the June 5 election for councilwoman Leslie Irving (D). Six of the witnesses said they cast votes for Ms Irving. Others testified that Ms Iriving and her associates visited them in their homes and urged them to vote for her. As a result of the courts findings MS Irving was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California. The fact that non-citizens had registered and voted in the election would never have come to light if the incumbant mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes had not contested the election.

    A 2005 limited investigation of Illegal Alien "driver privilege" cards in Utah found that hundreds of Illegals were registered ti vote in the state (as many as 7,000). a quick surface check showed at least 14 of them had voted in the previous election.

    In February 2008, the Milwaukee Police Dept. released a report that concluded, after an 18 month investigation, that in 2004 there had been an "illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin." Among the problems cited by the investigation were ineligible voters casting ballots, transient college students casting improper votes and voting twice, homeless persons voting more than once, felons both casting ballots and working at the polls as well as gross incompetence resulting from poor record keeping and inadequately trained workers at the polls. Between 4,600 and 5,300 more ballots were cast than voters who were recorded to have shown up at the polls. More than 1300 registration cards filled out at the polls were "un-enterable" or invalid.
    The sloppiness was on such a grand scale as to hamper and often prevent prosecution of those who committed fraud.
    The report directly implicated the John Kerry campaign and get-out-the-vote- organizations allied with the Kerry campaign in wide spread illegal voting committed by campaign workers, many of whom were from out of state. The most common abuse made use of by these groups was the same-day voter registration law, they registered and cast votes at multiple locations.Local election officials asking for proof of residence were often presented with Kerry campaign staff members who were registered voters who vouched for them by corroborating their residency. Other staff members who were deputy registrars for this election registered these individuals as Milwaukee residents, bypassing election officials altogether. The report goes on to detail the actions of the campaign and 527 of it's staff members as violations Wisconsin law.


    In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that up to 3% of 30,000 people called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two year period in just one district court were not U.S. Citizens.
    Looking at the close margins in recent election years, 3% of registered voters would be more than enough to sway elections in a number of elections.


    Stop trying to pretend the problem doesn't exist.













  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 13, 2012 8:05 PM GMT
    OH WAIT Where's Breitbart ?

    Oh ..... icon_cool.gif
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Mar 13, 2012 8:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.



    I don't understand how going out and getting proper identification to vote can be seen as a bad thing even with what you wrote above. How are the poor, elderly, or students disproportionately effected by the laws if they have access to get state issued IDs? I have been showing my ID to vote for as long as I can remember.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 8:43 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.



    I don't understand how going out and getting proper identification to vote can be seen as a bad thing even with what you wrote above. How are the poor, elderly, or students disproportionately effected by the laws if they have access to get state issued IDs? I have been showing my ID to vote for as long as I can remember.


    What part of unconstitutional do people here not understand?

    As this judge plainly points out, short of amending the Constitution to require ID, passing local laws to do so is unconstitutional.

    The other issues related to voting fraud - which is infinitesimal - can be dealt with through other means.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Mar 13, 2012 8:55 PM GMT
    Our state government is located in Madison, one of if not the most liberal cities in the country. Is it any wonder why a Dane county (Madison) democratic liberal judge deemed it unconstitutional? This same judge also signed the recall against Governor Walker....talk about an unbiased decision much??

    That being said, the unionistas are going after 4 more republican senators and our Governor in recalls this spring and summer in an effort to "take back" the state. All the while the states unemployment has dropped to its lowest levels in 3 years, many counties are now running a budget surplus from the reforms, and property taxes went down!!. And this despite the democrat leaders in our state killing approx. 10,000 jobs from a new mining bill that would have provided union, middle class and family supporting jobs. Oh how the lefties like to claim they are for the union workers and middle class while all they try to do is kill everything this governor puts forth.

    As far as the voter ID bill. It will be re-written and passed again so dont get you skirt in a ruffle lefties. The governors approval rating is at 55% now and he will easily win the recall against him.

    By the way, props to our neighbors to the west (minnesota) for making thier state the latest right to work state.

    ON WISCONSIN !!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 9:04 PM GMT
    Unless there was something specific in this law that was problematic, the decision will be overturned.

    US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law
    http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_courts/breaking_supreme_court_rejects_challenge_to_indiana_voter_id_law

    US Supreme Court Decision pdf
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf

    Georgia Supreme Court Declares Voter ID Law Constitutional
    http://law.ga.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,87670814_167294941_168848327,00.html
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Mar 13, 2012 9:17 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Bigolbear said
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.



    I don't understand how going out and getting proper identification to vote can be seen as a bad thing even with what you wrote above. How are the poor, elderly, or students disproportionately effected by the laws if they have access to get state issued IDs? I have been showing my ID to vote for as long as I can remember.


    What part of unconstitutional do people here not understand?

    As this judge plainly points out, short of amending the Constitution to require ID, passing local laws to do so is unconstitutional.

    The other issues related to voting fraud - which is infinitesimal - can be dealt with through other means.



    So you would not have issue with it if it was in the constitution? I didn't read in my comments where I was saying it was constitutional but I was saying it does seem to make common sense that it's easy enough to get a government ID for voting and I didn't see where doing so would disproportionately have an effect on the poor, elderly, or students.

    So what would be your "other means" for dealing with it?

    (Just for the record, I'm not asking these questions out of snark or with any hostility. I'm just trying to understand your point better.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 1:47 AM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.



    I don't understand how going out and getting proper identification to vote can be seen as a bad thing even with what you wrote above. How are the poor, elderly, or students disproportionately effected by the laws if they have access to get state issued IDs? I have been showing my ID to vote for as long as I can remember.




    Because the unconstitutional law would've forced people to have to pay for the documents necessary to obtain the state sanctioned ID that would've been required for citizens to be able to excercise their constitutional right to vote.

    http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120226/SHE06/202260308/Community-Conversation-Learn-more-about-voter-photo-ID-law

    The Constitution forbids placing that kind of an impediment upon US citizens.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 1:54 AM GMT
    And if the IDs and the process for obtaining them are made free to the public (or means-tested if revenue generation from the middle and upper classes is needful)...

    ...then there is no problem, right?

    Unless you don't have any concerns with zombie voters or guys who get an extra carton of cigs and some MD or some Thunderbird to vote at half a dozen polling places on the same election day. ;)

    rUUNW.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 1:55 AM GMT
    RickRick91 saidBecause the unconstitutional law would've forced people to have to pay for the documents necessary to obtain the state sanctioned ID that would've been required for citizens to be able to excercise their constitutional right to vote.

    http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120226/SHE06/202260308/Community-Conversation-Learn-more-about-voter-photo-ID-law

    The Constitution forbids placing that kind of an impediment upon US citizens.

    And if it wasn't already obvious what Wisconsin Republicans were up to, they closed a number of State motor vehicle offices, where voters can obtain alternative forms of picture ID if they don't have drivers licenses.

    This when the new voter ID requirement would be placing a greater demand on these offices. And which offices got closed? Ones in the more heavily Democratic districts. Forcing voters there to travel greater distances to get the IDs they'd need to vote. EXCEPT, these are the voters who don't have licenses, because they don't drive! A brilliant tactic on the part of Republicans, clearly designed to selectively disenfranchise otherwise eligible Democrats.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 14, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidI've honestly never understood the hysteria over voter ID laws... or how it's supposed to "suppress" votes.

    I need an ID to buy groceries on my credit card, get on an airplane, and order a beer, but not vote for President of the United States? Why is voting the only right that somehow mysteriously is getting suppressed by requiring that you meet the basic legal minimum for expressing it?


    Because having an ID is not the "basic legal minimum" as this ruling points out.

    Further, voting fraud is such a miniscule problem in the United States that these "laws" would prevent millions of Americans from voting to stop a handful of false votes from being cast. So suppressing the vote is a MUCH bigger distortion of the electorate. And since the poor, elderly and students are disproportionately effected by these laws, they end up targeting specific groups of people.



    I don't understand how going out and getting proper identification to vote can be seen as a bad thing even with what you wrote above. How are the poor, elderly, or students disproportionately effected by the laws if they have access to get state issued IDs? I have been showing my ID to vote for as long as I can remember.


    Well you take it for granted because if someone asks for your driver's licence or passport, perhaps you have one.

    But what about people who don't travel or drive because they can't afford to? Because they don't have those documents, suddenly they're not permitted to vote?

    It is a requirement of citizenship that you must obtain a driver's licence, passport or other government issued photo ID? If it isn't...then the law was definitely unconstitutional, and needed to be struck down!
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 14, 2012 2:19 AM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidAnd if the IDs and the process for obtaining them are made free to the public (or means-tested if revenue generation from the middle and upper classes is needful)...

    ...then there is no problem, right?


    If that's the reason it is deemed unconstitutional, then perhaps that will work to help reinstate the voter ID requirement. Having not read the text of the decision, I'm not in a position to say that that is all that is required or not.

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 14, 2012 2:31 AM GMT
    jock_1 saidOur state government is located in Madison, one of if not the most liberal cities in the country. Is it any wonder why a Dane county (Madison) democratic liberal judge deemed it unconstitutional? This same judge also signed the recall against Governor Walker....talk about an unbiased decision much??

    That being said, the unionistas are going after 4 more republican senators and our Governor in recalls this spring and summer in an effort to "take back" the state. All the while the states unemployment has dropped to its lowest levels in 3 years, many counties are now running a budget surplus from the reforms, and property taxes went down!!. And this despite the democrat leaders in our state killing approx. 10,000 jobs from a new mining bill that would have provided union, middle class and family supporting jobs. Oh how the lefties like to claim they are for the union workers and middle class while all they try to do is kill everything this governor puts forth.

    As far as the voter ID bill. It will be re-written and passed again so dont get you skirt in a ruffle lefties. The governors approval rating is at 55% now and he will easily win the recall against him.

    By the way, props to our neighbors to the west (minnesota) for making thier state the latest right to work state.

    ON WISCONSIN !!


    Actually, the slant of the judge is ultimately meaningless. If the constitution is not going to require citizens to pay for a passport, driver's licence or other government issued photo ID, but the state is going to disqualify people without those pieces of identification from voting, it's a straight forward matter relating to constitutional rights being violated that even an idiot conservative judge or politician should be able to grasp!

    Say what you will...but it was a straight up attempt by Walker to disenfranchise voters that would've likely been more sympathetic towards the Democratic cause...and ultimately his voter ID law was an affront to democracy!

    Why are conservatives and Republicans so afraid of the poor when it comes to votes? Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, and it is solidly Republican!

    From what I've heard, the US economy is humming again, and once again the gains are almost completely benefitting the wealthy. If indeed Minnesota became a "right to work" state, and Wisconsin follows suit...and the majority in both states continue to support the politicians who passed those laws...then the people truly deserve to be nothing more than wage slaves!

    Oh, and how do you figure that Democrats in Wisconsin killed that mining bill? The Republicans are still in total control of Wisconsin!
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Mar 14, 2012 2:36 AM GMT
    Wasnt this done by a judge that signed the recall petition?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    JP85257 saidWasnt this done by a judge that signed the recall petition?


    I believe so but a) the recall is part of the Wisconsin constitution and b) no abridgement of voting rights is part of the US Constitution. To rule in any other way, would be "judicial activism". icon_wink.gif
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Mar 14, 2012 4:02 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    JP85257 saidWasnt this done by a judge that signed the recall petition?


    I believe so but a) the recall is part of the Wisconsin constitution and b) no abridgement of voting rights is part of the US Constitution. To rule in any other way, would be "judicial activism". icon_wink.gif

    I was curious, but I find he should have recused himself from this one just on his own merit.

    The left would be bitching and catterwalling had it been opposite.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Mar 14, 2012 4:17 AM GMT
    Can someone please explain to me what the problem is with showing ID when you vote? I don't understand for the life of me why this is an issue. We show our ID's for almost anything we do, buy, drink, use.... Why is it so unbelievable and difficult to accept when it comes to VOTING, of all things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:17 AM GMT
    JP85257 said
    Christian73 said
    JP85257 saidWasnt this done by a judge that signed the recall petition?


    I believe so but a) the recall is part of the Wisconsin constitution and b) no abridgement of voting rights is part of the US Constitution. To rule in any other way, would be "judicial activism". icon_wink.gif

    I was curious, but I find he should have recused himself from this one just on his own merit.

    The left would be bitching and catterwalling had it been opposite.


    Why? Judges are supposed to be impartial. Using your math, no one on the Supreme Court would be allowed to rule on anything. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:24 AM GMT
    JP85257 said
    Christian73 said
    JP85257 saidWasnt this done by a judge that signed the recall petition?


    I believe so but a) the recall is part of the Wisconsin constitution and b) no abridgement of voting rights is part of the US Constitution. To rule in any other way, would be "judicial activism". icon_wink.gif

    I was curious, but I find he should have recused himself from this one just on his own merit.

    The left would be bitching and catterwalling had it been opposite.




    The judge made his ruling based on existing law.

    His ruling won't help the Repubs suppress Democratic votes - so the right is bitching and CATERWAULING!