Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law

[jwlcosu]

The law is on my side.

I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, I think you're wrong on the law. See it here:

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

Wisconsin judge went rogue. Pretty likely he'll be overturned.

 

[jwlcosu]

And spare us your righteous shit about him being "unelected"... if unelected judges do something you favor, you'd have no problem with it.

Example please...of an unelected judge overturning an election result that I would have no problem with. If you come up with one I will acknowledge.

 

[erg57]

An unelected judge overturns the will of the electorate. Happening a lot lately. The judge is a bigot. He stoops to the level that presumes minorities are pathetic and incapable of securing personal identification.

If you are reading this, you show an ID to fly, to rent a car, to check into a hotel, to buy a beer at the airport, to do all kinds of things. But not to vote?

One good thing that community organizers could actually do would be to help get an ID for anyone that needs one. How's about it organizers? Set up a table in your neighborhood and find everyone that doesn't have an ID. Then help them get one. Problem solved. Everyone can then vote, and buy beer at the airport.

will of the electorate? Nope. This was red lined by a sub-committee and then brought to a vote in state congress. There was nothing electorate about it.

 

[erg57]

An unelected judge overturns the will of the electorate. Happening a lot lately. The judge is a bigot. He stoops to the level that presumes minorities are pathetic and incapable of securing personal identification.

If you are reading this, you show an ID to fly, to rent a car, to check into a hotel, to buy a beer at the airport, to do all kinds of things. But not to vote?

One good thing that community organizers could actually do would be to help get an ID for anyone that needs one. How's about it organizers? Set up a table in your neighborhood and find everyone that doesn't have an ID. Then help them get one. Problem solved. Everyone can then vote, and buy beer at the airport.

will of the electorate? Nope. This was red lined by a sub-committee and then brought to a vote in state congress. There was nothing electorate about it. Not only will it not be overturned, it will be the model for other states contesting these acts of voter suppression.

 

[zyxt9]

someone please explain the extreme difficulty in acquiring a state I'd.

You can get one without it being a drivers license.

Furthermore, after 9/11, it is something everyone should have with them at all times.

I've personally known homeless people who have them.

Everytime I've gone to Vote I've had to prove my residency, isn't it discriminatory to demand that of me but not someone who just claims they have residency?

Even if u can't get a state I'd, sme type of utility bill or rent agreement, something,should be sufficient. They SHOULD be checking residency to make sure you get correct ballot anyway, should they not?

I just don't understand how it is discriminatory against anyone. Sorry, it just ford not compute. Not when I've seen homeless people with them.

Even illegals can pretty easily get them. It is more to verify they are voting the correct ballot and a simple checking off that they received their ballot so as to not be given one twice.

It provides integrity...oh wait...integrity and politics never go hand in hand...forget everything I just said, but please recognize I didn't say one party or the other lacks integrity, just politics overall.

 

[Thumb]

someone please explain the extreme difficulty in acquiring a state I'd.

You can get one without it being a drivers license.

Furthermore, after 9/11, it is something everyone should have with them at all times.

I've personally known homeless people who have them.

Everytime I've gone to Vote I've had to prove my residency, isn't it discriminatory to demand that of me but not someone who just claims they have residency?

Even if u can't get a state I'd, sme type of utility bill or rent agreement, something,should be sufficient. They SHOULD be checking residency to make sure you get correct ballot anyway, should they not?

I just don't understand how it is discriminatory against anyone. Sorry, it just ford not compute. Not when I've seen homeless people with them.

Even illegals can pretty easily get them. It is more to verify they are voting the correct ballot and a simple checking off that they received their ballot so as to not be given one twice.

It provides integrity...oh wait...integrity and politics never go hand in hand...forget everything I just said, but please recognize I didn't say one party or the other lacks integrity, just politics overall.

Wait, I have an idea, why don't we just get serial numbers tattooed on our wrists?

You have to provide ID and proof of residence when you register to vote, why is that not sufficient?

 

[jwlcosu]

will of the electorate? Nope. This was red lined by a sub-committee and then brought to a vote in state congress. There was nothing electorate about it. Not only will it not be overturned, it will be the model for other states contesting these acts of voter suppression.

Presumably state representatives express the will of the electorate but your point is valid, the Wisconsin law was not a direct election result. I maintain that the judge's decision will likely be reversed, however. See post 41 and click. Supreme Court decisions tend to be binding.

 

[Gulo Blue]

someone please explain the extreme difficulty in acquiring a state I'd.

It's not about extreme difficulty. Minimal difficulty is all it takes to suppress votes. If you make voting less convenient for certain people, they will vote less. It's about the impact of such laws. Think about the whole butterfly ballot thing. It's not about principles and who can or can't vote, it's the small things that actually make a difference.

 

[jwlcosu]

It's not about extreme difficulty. Minimal difficulty is all it takes to suppress votes. If you make voting less convenient for certain people, they will vote less. It's about the impact of such laws. Think about the whole butterfly ballot thing. It's not about principles and who can or can't vote, it's the small things that actually make a difference.

Again, see post 41 and click. It is not only the downtrodden whose vote is deserving of protection. The integrity of your vote is worthy as well.

 

[KAWDUP]

It's not about extreme difficulty. Minimal difficulty is all it takes to suppress votes. If you make voting less convenient for certain people, they will vote less. It's about the impact of such laws. Think about the whole butterfly ballot thing. It's not about principles and who can or can't vote, it's the small things that actually make a difference.

Just generally being old makes it less convenient to vote. If you have a small flight of stairs to get to a polling place, a lot less old people will vote. Are they being suppressed? If so, where is the outrage for that?

Not sure I agree with your degrees of voter suppression and I state up front that neither situation is necessarily right or wrong - just throwing it out there that we do or don't do things all the time that represent less convenience for certain groups of voters.

. . . and considering benefits vs. cost, vs. the amount of suppression if said action is done/not done - I am not sure we have yet covered all the factors affecting how this issue will play out.

 

[Michchamp]

Just generally being old makes it less convenient to vote. If you have a small flight of stairs to get to a polling place, a lot less old people will vote. Are they being suppressed? If so, where is the outrage for that?

Not sure I agree with your degrees of voter suppression and I state up front that neither situation is necessarily right or wrong - just throwing it out there that we do or don't do things all the time that represent less convenience for certain groups of voters.

. . . and considering benefits vs. cost, vs. the amount of suppression if said action is done/not done - I am not sure we have yet covered all the factors affecting how this issue will play out.

We don't need to... there's no evidence voter fraud is a problem to begin with.

Too bad... the GOP may have to go back to square one on the "how to disenfranchise poor people who don't vote for us, especially minorities" chart. What a horrible day for American democracy.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, I think you're wrong on the law. See it here:

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

Wisconsin judge went rogue. Pretty likely he'll be overturned.

you read the opinion there? wow... tell us your thoughts on it.

 

[KAWDUP]

We don't need to... there's no evidence voter fraud is a problem to begin with.

Too bad... the GOP may have to go back to square one on the "how to disenfranchise poor people who don't vote for us, especially minorities" chart. What a horrible day for American democracy.

Well I currently have to show my state Id to verify residency in every vote I have ever partaken in. Is this not how it works in nearly every state already?

I don't have specific evidence of fraud, other than some people who have admitted it (and been punished), but fraud might not be the only reason to implement it, contrary to what the far right have stated.

If by some miracle, it was proven not to disenfranchise anyone, would you still be against it?

 

[Michchamp]

Well I currently have to show my state Id to verify residency in every vote I have ever partaken in. Is this not how it works in nearly every state already?

I don't have specific evidence of fraud, other than some people who have admitted it (and been punished), but fraud might not be the only reason to implement it, contrary to what the far right have stated.

I'm not an expert in elections law. in past elections in Chicago though, I registered, received notice of my polling place by mail, went there and used something (pretty much anything) to establish my ID... it could be the "where to vote" notice itself, utility bill, etc.

it worked fine. now you have all these dickbag Republicans claiming voter fraud is a major issue - WITHOUT PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE THAT STOOD UP TO SCRUTINY - and ramming all these bills through state legislatures. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that has stood up to scrutiny that these laws make voting more difficult for blocks of the population that do not tend to vote Republican.

If by some miracle, it was proven not to disenfranchise anyone, would you still be against it?

yes, because there's no evidence it prevents any harm, or provides any other benefit, other than preventing the occasional, rare, and statistically insignificant voting error. it's not worth the cost. See the study I posted in this thread if you care, or just keep pretending it doesn't exist and hoping other posters show up to shout it down and defend the myth that voter fraud is a problem.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not an expert in elections law. in past elections in Chicago though, I registered, received notice of my polling place by mail, went there and used something (pretty much anything) to establish my ID... it could be the "where to vote" notice itself, utility bill, etc.

it worked fine. now you have all these dickbag Republicans claiming voter fraud is a major issue - WITHOUT PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE THAT STOOD UP TO SCRUTINY - and ramming all these bills through state legislatures. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that has stood up to scrutiny that these laws make voting more difficult for blocks of the population that do not tend to vote Republican.



yes, because there's no evidence it prevents any harm, or provides any other benefit, other than preventing the occasional, rare, and statistically insignificant voting error. it's not worth the cost. See the study I posted in this thread if you care, or just keep pretending it doesn't exist and hoping other posters show up to shout it down and defend the myth that voter fraud is a problem.

OK - I'll hope other posters show up to shout it down and defend the myth. :*)

 

[Gulo Blue]

Just generally being old makes it less convenient to vote. If you have a small flight of stairs to get to a polling place, a lot less old people will vote. Are they being suppressed? If so, where is the outrage for that?

Not sure I agree with your degrees of voter suppression and I state up front that neither situation is necessarily right or wrong - just throwing it out there that we do or don't do things all the time that represent less convenience for certain groups of voters.

. . . and considering benefits vs. cost, vs. the amount of suppression if said action is done/not done - I am not sure we have yet covered all the factors affecting how this issue will play out.

It's the "do or don't do" part that's separates the two cases. There's a difference between doing something that suppresses voting and factors that are out of your control. Rural voters have to travel farther, people without transportation have a bigger challenge. We do the best we can with what we've got.

It's a matter of competing interests. Higher security reduces the vote count from one group of people and lower security opens a door to fraud. If people only weighed the amount of fraud vs the amount of voter turnout impact to find the right level of security, that would be nice. Instead, people mostly line up along party lines since the partisan impact of such laws are known.

 

[KAWDUP]

It's the "do or don't do" part that's separates the two cases. There's a difference between doing something that suppresses voting and factors that are out of your control. Rural voters have to travel farther, people without transportation have a bigger challenge. We do the best we can with what we've got.

It's a matter of competing interests. Higher security reduces the vote count from one group of people and lower security opens a door to fraud. If people only weighed the amount of fraud vs the amount of voter turnout impact to find the right level of security, that would be nice. Instead, people mostly line up along party lines since the partisan impact of such laws are known.

Are there qualified studies done that quantify how much less participation we see with voter id laws (specifically from this section of voters which people are saying are disenfranchised)?

Also, do we have vote totals for that state, county, or precinct election where the difference in the number of voters would have swayed the election one way or the other?

We certainly wouldn't be all up in arms about this disenfranchisement unless we can already quantify how many "dickbag" Republicans got elected because of these voter id laws, right?

 

[zyxt9]

Wait, I have an idea, why don't we just get serial numbers tattooed on our wrists?

You have to provide ID and proof of residence when you register to vote, why is that not sufficient?

because anyone could show up and say they are someone that they are not.

yes, there is the possibility of someone forging the ID, but then that at least allows for an investigation to be made.

and if you had to show ID to register, then why is it so terrible to ask for that same ID at the voting booth? because you need it to be more anonymous than the pulled curtain or something??? what is the problem exactly, unless it is because someone is trying to cheat the system, then I can see where it would be a problem. one person, one vote. you might know a neighbor who is not going to vote so you decide to impersonate them but, damn it, they asked for your ID, those bastards!!!

 

[zyxt9]

you have to check in when getting your ballot. how much increased security is there by simply asking for an ID? the security lies in ensuring the one person, one vote aspect...but it doesn't make the polling location more secure. who in the world would say, "oh damn, they want my ID and verify I am who I say I am...now I can't go vote".

where is the problem?????????? how are people being denied, turned away, or made to feel somehow unwelcomed???????????

 

[Thumb]

because anyone could show up and say they are someone that they are not.

yes, there is the possibility of someone forging the ID, but then that at least allows for an investigation to be made.

and if you had to show ID to register, then why is it so terrible to ask for that same ID at the voting booth? because you need it to be more anonymous than the pulled curtain or something??? what is the problem exactly, unless it is because someone is trying to cheat the system, then I can see where it would be a problem. one person, one vote. you might know a neighbor who is not going to vote so you decide to impersonate them but, damn it, they asked for your ID, those bastards!!!

I like how you skipped right over the first part. Requiring all people to carry ID at all times....you are so big brother, chips in our heads too....I thought the part about the wrist tattoos would make a point seeing as you have mentioned converting to Judaism several times here. Ask some of you in-laws what they think about the idea.

Showing ID before you vote is no great inconvenience to most, but it might be to some. But as people in this thread have said, what's the reason for it? Is it really about voter fraud, or is it about trying to see if you can get a large block of voters to not bother to show up? It's frivolous legislation, and a waste of time and effort by those who are paid by taxpayer salaries, who could be doing something useful, almost anything else useful.