Voter ID law blocked in Wisconsin

Chris

Gold Member
May 30, 2008
23,154
1,967
205
Madison - A Dane County judge will rule on whether to permanently block the state's new voter ID law on Monday, less than a week after a different judge blocked the law for the short term.

Dane County Judge Richard Niess said from the bench Friday he would rule Monday on whether the requirement to show photo identification at the polls violates the state constitution.

His announcement came three days after Dane County Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction halting the photo ID requirement for the April 3 election.

On Friday, the state Department of Justice asked Flanagan to stay his injunction while it appeals the case.

Flanagan has come under fire because he signed a petition to recall Gov. Scott Walker, who approved the voter ID law and is named in the case he heard. Niess did not sign the recall petition, according to his office.

The ruling that will come out Monday is in a case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin that argues the state constitution allows the Legislature to exclude felons and mentally incompetent people from voting, but not other classes of people. The new law creates a new category of people who cannot vote - those without photo ID - and thus violates the state constitution, the lawsuit argues.

Whether Wisconsin's photo ID law will stand is widely considered to be decided by a higher court. In addition to the two Dane County cases, there are two challenges to the law in federal court in Milwaukee.

Judge to decide Monday on whether to permanently block voter ID - JSOnline
 
Madison - A Dane County judge will rule on whether to permanently block the state's new voter ID law on Monday, less than a week after a different judge blocked the law for the short term.

Dane County Judge Richard Niess said from the bench Friday he would rule Monday on whether the requirement to show photo identification at the polls violates the state constitution.

His announcement came three days after Dane County Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction halting the photo ID requirement for the April 3 election.

On Friday, the state Department of Justice asked Flanagan to stay his injunction while it appeals the case.

Flanagan has come under fire because he signed a petition to recall Gov. Scott Walker, who approved the voter ID law and is named in the case he heard. Niess did not sign the recall petition, according to his office.

The ruling that will come out Monday is in a case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin that argues the state constitution allows the Legislature to exclude felons and mentally incompetent people from voting, but not other classes of people. The new law creates a new category of people who cannot vote - those without photo ID - and thus violates the state constitution, the lawsuit argues.

Whether Wisconsin's photo ID law will stand is widely considered to be decided by a higher court. In addition to the two Dane County cases, there are two challenges to the law in federal court in Milwaukee.

Judge to decide Monday on whether to permanently block voter ID - JSOnline

You are supposed to seek medical attention if your hard-on (which robs blood from your brain) lasts more than four hours.

You brain needs all the blood it can get. At this point any would be good as it seems it is getting nothing.
 
Another liberal activist judge using the bench to usurp the will of the People.
Guess what Chrissie? This guy is pretty low on the judicial totem pole. His ruling will be overturned.
Wishful thinking on your part.
 
Another liberal activist judge using the bench to usurp the will of the People.
Guess what Chrissie? This guy is pretty low on the judicial totem pole. His ruling will be overturned.
Wishful thinking on your part.

But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]
 
The solution to the voter ID problem is to require an ID card that's issued for free, like a Social Security Card.

Of course it would be a whole lot more effective if the ID card itself were more secure than a flimsy piece of paper with a name and number.

Eh, :dunno: ya get what ya pay for.
 
Yeah, God forbid they require that you prove you are who you say you are before you can vote. The lefts motives on this issue are so obvious it's laughable.
 
The solution to the voter ID problem is to require an ID card that's issued for free, like a Social Security Card.

Of course it would be a whole lot more effective if the ID card itself were more secure than a flimsy piece of paper with a name and number.

Eh, :dunno: ya get what ya pay for.

Do you mean like this?
Georgia law provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens eighteen (18) and over who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/dldata.aspx?con=1749371755&ty=dl

I am reasonably sure most other states that have picture ID requirements have this same provision. If the Wisconsin law does not have this requirement, they should amend it, but I will bet it already has it.
 
The solution to the voter ID problem is to require an ID card that's issued for free, like a Social Security Card.

Of course it would be a whole lot more effective if the ID card itself were more secure than a flimsy piece of paper with a name and number.

Eh, :dunno: ya get what ya pay for.

Do you mean like this?
Georgia law provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens eighteen (18) and over who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.

Georgia Identification Card for Voting Purposes

I am reasonably sure most other states that have picture ID requirements have this same provision. If the Wisconsin law does not have this requirement, they should amend it, but I will bet it already has it.
Voting should be reserved to those that meet the list of requirements? A 6 year old should be allowed to buy guns because a WELL ARMED MILITIA is part of the Constitution? As freedom of expression is often touted, where are the requirements for that right? Why not poll & everybody pick their favorite out of the Bill of Rights?
**********************************************

Georgia law provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens eighteen (18) and over who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.

Applicants for a free identification card are reminded of the following:

REQUIREMENTS

Proof of identity (if never previously licensed or issued a Georgia identification card), such as a certified birth certificate, military ID or unexpired passport. A complete list of acceptable documents can be found here. The DDS cannot accept photocopies or faxes, so customers are reminded to bring their original documents with raised seal or certification seals.
If your name is different than the name on your birth certificate, passport or military ID, you must present certified documents showing all name changes (marriage, divorce if the name changed, adoption, etc.).
Proof of residency, such as a utility bill or bank statement. A complete list of acceptable documents can be found here.
Proof of citizenship, which for most customers is satisfied using a birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or territory, or immigration documentation.
Completion of an Affidavit for Identification Card for Voting Purposes containing the following:
I desire an identification card in order to vote in a primary or election in Georgia;
I do not have any other form of identification that is acceptable under O.C.G.A. §21-2-417 for identification at the polls in order to vote;
I am registered to vote in Georgia or I am applying to register to vote as part of my application for an identification card; and
I do not have a valid driver's license issued by the State of Georgia.
************************************************************
Most of those who are the most rabid about PHOTO ID to vote might be able to pay a poll tax, but couldn't qualify if an IQ test was required.

BETTER 10 ineligible voters cast a ballot than 1 eligible voter be denied. (paraphrased-Blackstone)
 
Another liberal activist judge using the bench to usurp the will of the People.
Guess what Chrissie? This guy is pretty low on the judicial totem pole. His ruling will be overturned.
Wishful thinking on your part.

But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]


This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.
 
Another liberal activist judge using the bench to usurp the will of the People.
Guess what Chrissie? This guy is pretty low on the judicial totem pole. His ruling will be overturned.
Wishful thinking on your part.

But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]


This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.
Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.
 
Will someone please tell me how asking a person to prove they are legally eligible to vote violates their rights or makes it more difficult to vote?
 
But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]


This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.

Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.


They require IDs when purchasing a hand gun, yet there is no cry for infringement of second amendment rights. Why shouldn't voting, that is such valuable basic right, have safe guards that help guarantee that right from corruption?

The United States Supreme Court saw absolutely nothing wrong with Voter IDs

The court, voting 6-3, rejected Democratic contentions that the Indiana law will impose an unconstitutional burden on voters.

Writing the court's lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the risk of voter fraud is ``real'' and that fraud ``could affect the outcome of a close election.'' States, he said, have a ``valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.''

The Indiana law was enacted along party lines and signed by a Republican governor. Under the measure, voters who don't have a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one.

To obtain a photo ID, Indiana residents must present at least one ``primary'' document, such as a birth certificate, passport, certificate of naturalization or military ID.

Democrats contended that the new Indiana law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, including a disproportionate number of minority, elderly and poor people.

Stevens said the evidence didn't back up those assertions. He said the record in the case ``does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.''
 
But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]


This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.
Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.

And yet you have failed to address the OP or even address anything that can be considered an argument against voter ID laws.

I am a small government guy. I want smaller government in almost any situation yet I recognize the need for I identification and background check requirements in relation to my second amendment rights. I also recognize that there needs to be identification requirements in order to exercise my right to vote. It is that simple.
 
But how can that be?? The judge is doing what Chris and the unions want, so he must be right.

[/sarcasm]


This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.
Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.
******************************************
"Voter infiltration"? How does the bused in thousands scenario work:
1. Union obtains registration rolls: I accept that.
2. Union does extensive research as to those on the rolls either dead, or unlikely to vote: Possible.
3. Union sends in BUSLOADS of unregistered voters, to polling locations, giving each one name from the dead/unlikely to vote list. There must be care taken in many cases to match gender, of course.
****************************************************
What happens when a few registered, unlikely to vote individuals show up & are told "you already voted"?

****************************************************
In 2002 it took me an hour to be GRANTED the right to vote*; I was questioned, had to sign an affidavit, and only a provisional ballot ALLOWED. I had to follow up to make sure my vote was accepted. The problem: the address on my photo ID not matching my registration address, WITHIN the same county.

2000: I signed an affidavit so a REGISTERED voter with no driver's license could vote.

Thus, one already must be registered, provide proof one is a US citizen, and other information to be eligible to register. THEN, provide photo ID, with matching details to receive the GIFT of voting.
*****************************************************
This is a "RIGHT"?
 
This way the unions can bus in all kinds of supporters from out of state to rally during the elections. We all know the unions couldn't possibly even think of swaying THIS election process through voter infiltration and fraud. The judge in this case even signed a recall petition supporting the removal of Gov. Scott Walker from office, so you can't allow a voter ID law to now rain on his parade.

Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.


They require IDs when purchasing a hand gun, yet there is no cry for infringement of second amendment rights. Why shouldn't voting, that is such valuable basic right, have safe guards that help guarantee that right from corruption?

The United States Supreme Court saw absolutely nothing wrong with Voter IDs

The court, voting 6-3, rejected Democratic contentions that the Indiana law will impose an unconstitutional burden on voters.

Writing the court's lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the risk of voter fraud is ``real'' and that fraud ``could affect the outcome of a close election.'' States, he said, have a ``valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.''

The Indiana law was enacted along party lines and signed by a Republican governor. Under the measure, voters who don't have a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one.

To obtain a photo ID, Indiana residents must present at least one ``primary'' document, such as a birth certificate, passport, certificate of naturalization or military ID.

Democrats contended that the new Indiana law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, including a disproportionate number of minority, elderly and poor people.

Stevens said the evidence didn't back up those assertions. He said the record in the case ``does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.''
either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one.
****************************************************
I would prefer the statement be available at the polling locations, but do not find this law unconstitutional. I ask why should there be so much concern about illegal voting as it is so difficult. Once again, how do the busloads of non registered voters get their names and addresses on the rolls?
 
Another poster AGAINST "big government" who demands MORE government regulations for voting.


They require IDs when purchasing a hand gun, yet there is no cry for infringement of second amendment rights. Why shouldn't voting, that is such valuable basic right, have safe guards that help guarantee that right from corruption?

The United States Supreme Court saw absolutely nothing wrong with Voter IDs

The court, voting 6-3, rejected Democratic contentions that the Indiana law will impose an unconstitutional burden on voters.

Writing the court's lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the risk of voter fraud is ``real'' and that fraud ``could affect the outcome of a close election.'' States, he said, have a ``valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.''

The Indiana law was enacted along party lines and signed by a Republican governor. Under the measure, voters who don't have a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one.

To obtain a photo ID, Indiana residents must present at least one ``primary'' document, such as a birth certificate, passport, certificate of naturalization or military ID.

Democrats contended that the new Indiana law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, including a disproportionate number of minority, elderly and poor people.

Stevens said the evidence didn't back up those assertions. He said the record in the case ``does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.''
either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one.
****************************************************
I would prefer the statement be available at the polling locations, but do not find this law unconstitutional. I ask why should there be so much concern about illegal voting as it is so difficult. Once again, how do the busloads of non registered voters get their names and addresses on the rolls?

That is obvious. They vote using someone's name that IS on the rolls. That is quite easy to do.
 
Another liberal activist judge using the bench to usurp the will of the People.
Guess what Chrissie? This guy is pretty low on the judicial totem pole. His ruling will be overturned.
Wishful thinking on your part.

Who ever said this was the "will of the people"? :confused:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top