Voter ID law blocked in Wisconsin

[Syphon]

I'm not sure how your state handles voter registration, but in AK, you register to vote at the DMV or online. You have to establish your residency and provide one of the following documents in order to receive a voter registration card: current and valid photo identification; driver's license; passport; state identification card; or birth certificate. You also have to present a photo ID or your voter registration card and sign the roster when you go to the polls. Given the geography of Alaska, it is pretty amazing that we don't appear to have the problems other states have getting people registered and to the polls when it's time to vote.
I guess it's a matter of how important voting is to the individual, whether they care enough to acquire the required documentation. One thing is certain, as the system is set up now, the cheaters have the upper hand.

you can also register to vote at any post office by simply filling out the form or getting it off the net printing it and mailing it in. neither of which require an ID

In Alaska?

i dont see the photo ID requirement here:

Alaska Statutes: AS 15.07.064. Information Required For Voter Registration.

and yes you can register to vote at the post office in alaska as well.

here is the form which is available online here:

Elections - Online Tools

 

[gallantwarrior]

you can also register to vote at any post office by simply filling out the form or getting it off the net printing it and mailing it in. neither of which require an ID

In Alaska?

i dont see the photo ID requirement here:

Alaska Statutes: AS 15.07.064. Information Required For Voter Registration.

and yes you can register to vote at the post office in alaska as well.

here is the form which is available online here:

Elections - Online Tools

You have to go a little further on the website.
Voter Registration

 

[Syphon]

In Alaska?

i dont see the photo ID requirement here:

Alaska Statutes: AS 15.07.064. Information Required For Voter Registration.

and yes you can register to vote at the post office in alaska as well.

here is the form which is available online here:

Elections - Online Tools

You have to go a little further on the website.
Voter Registration

so you still technically dont need a photo ID. you can use your birth certificate, proof of employment in Alaska indicating date of employment; or other documentation that supports your claim as an Alaska resident.

so they technically give you enough options that will let you avoid a photo ID depending on which scenario you are under.

 

[FA_Q2]

hmmmm does this mean that they can limit the right to own a gun? if they limit one right, they can limit all rights

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

That is an asinine comparison. You are equivocating voter ID to 'more gun laws' as a vague set of laws that can mean anything. Now, if you want to say that voter ID laws and requiring an ID when purchasing a firearm then I can agree. I have no problem with requiring an ID in both situations. I really don't think that you can purchase a firearm without an ID so I am guessing that is why you went down the disingenuous 'more gun laws' rout.

 

[Syphon]

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

That is an asinine comparison. You are equivocating voter ID to 'more gun laws' as a vague set of laws that can mean anything. Now, if you want to say that voter ID laws and requiring an ID when purchasing a firearm then I can agree. I have no problem with requiring an ID in both situations. I really don't think that you can purchase a firearm without an ID so I am guessing that is why you went down the disingenuous 'more gun laws' rout.

you missed the argument. people on the right want to repeal gun laws because they feel they violate their right to bear arms. i simply said if they on the right want to get voter ID laws, will they stop campaigning against the repeal of guns.

 

[FA_Q2]

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

That is an asinine comparison. You are equivocating voter ID to 'more gun laws' as a vague set of laws that can mean anything. Now, if you want to say that voter ID laws and requiring an ID when purchasing a firearm then I can agree. I have no problem with requiring an ID in both situations. I really don't think that you can purchase a firearm without an ID so I am guessing that is why you went down the disingenuous 'more gun laws' rout.

you missed the argument. people on the right want to repeal gun laws because they feel they violate their right to bear arms. i simply said if they on the right want to get voter ID laws, will they stop campaigning against the repeal of guns.

No, I get that argument and I was stating that was an asinine argument because voter ID laws do not equal gun control laws. Voter ID laws DO equal ID requirements for purchasing guns but that is another story as you are working outside just ID laws.


Let me ask you then, is supporting voter ID laws equivalent to background checks? How about bans on assault weapons? Perhaps controls on pistols? Concealed carry requirements? Maybe it is equivalent with waiting periods?


See what I mean. The idea that you cannot be consistent when supporting both rolling back gun controls and voter ID laws is disingenuous because you are not specifying any specifics in gun laws. There is no inconsistency in disagreeing with current assault gun bans and supporting voter ID. They are not only separate issues but also completely different in nature as to how they affect their associated rights. IF you want to be more specific, such as being against requiring ID or background checks when purchasing a firearm, you may have a point but the blanket statement that you made is completely off base.

 

[MeBelle]

there is no constitutional right to a credit, drivers license, buy a home or opens a business. you can actually get a SS card at birth with no ID as well, and a SS card has no photo identification on it.

there actually is a constitutional right to privacy as was determined in several supreme court decisions. you may disagree with the decision, but that does not change the fact this the right to privacy has been granted.

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

<snipped>

So how do you explain all of the mass mailers and robocalls registered voters will receive come election time if registered voters have a 'right to privacy'?

 

[Chris]

Republicans want to suppress the black vote.

They did it in Florida in 2000, and look how the country suffered as a result.

 

[FA_Q2]

there is no constitutional right to a credit, drivers license, buy a home or opens a business. you can actually get a SS card at birth with no ID as well, and a SS card has no photo identification on it.

there actually is a constitutional right to privacy as was determined in several supreme court decisions. you may disagree with the decision, but that does not change the fact this the right to privacy has been granted.

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

<snipped>

So how do you explain all of the mass mailers and robocalls registered voters will receive come election time if registered voters have a 'right to privacy'?

What does the right to privacy have to do with a right to not be annoyed?

Just because you have a right to not be spied on does not mean that you cant get phone calls or the evangelist knocking at your door.

Of course, I wonder if there really is a right to privacy, how did the patriot act actually get passed but we know the answer to that....

 

[Sarah G]

Seems like Scott Walker is earning the title of most hated governor ever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

looks like I will have a busy day come election day going to all those states who do not require a person to show an ID before they vote.

 

[Syphon]

That is an asinine comparison. You are equivocating voter ID to 'more gun laws' as a vague set of laws that can mean anything. Now, if you want to say that voter ID laws and requiring an ID when purchasing a firearm then I can agree. I have no problem with requiring an ID in both situations. I really don't think that you can purchase a firearm without an ID so I am guessing that is why you went down the disingenuous 'more gun laws' rout.

you missed the argument. people on the right want to repeal gun laws because they feel they violate their right to bear arms. i simply said if they on the right want to get voter ID laws, will they stop campaigning against the repeal of guns.

No, I get that argument and I was stating that was an asinine argument because voter ID laws do not equal gun control laws. Voter ID laws DO equal ID requirements for purchasing guns but that is another story as you are working outside just ID laws.


Let me ask you then, is supporting voter ID laws equivalent to background checks? How about bans on assault weapons? Perhaps controls on pistols? Concealed carry requirements? Maybe it is equivalent with waiting periods?


See what I mean. The idea that you cannot be consistent when supporting both rolling back gun controls and voter ID laws is disingenuous because you are not specifying any specifics in gun laws. There is no inconsistency in disagreeing with current assault gun bans and supporting voter ID. They are not only separate issues but also completely different in nature as to how they affect their associated rights. IF you want to be more specific, such as being against requiring ID or background checks when purchasing a firearm, you may have a point but the blanket statement that you made is completely off base.

according to conservatives any law that limits the right to bear arms (i.e. background checks, waiting periods, ID's etc) is an infringement. thus they would like to see all those laws repealed. ive already given example of this. you need to think bigger, and about the larger scale than specific one off instances.

if you are advocating for a repeal of those laws on the theory that you are violating a constitutional right, how can you then advocate for the creation of a law that limits another right that is constitutionally protect?

its called hypocrisy. im against laws that limit this right, but im for laws that limit this other right. if you cant see that, its not my problem.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Republicans want to suppress the black vote.

They did it in Florida in 2000, and look how the country suffered as a result.

I'll ask this again; why is it that Dems/libs/progressives persist in representing blacks specifically as being incapable of complying with a fairly simple requirement?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans want to suppress the black vote.

They did it in Florida in 2000, and look how the country suffered as a result.

1. Of course that is untrue...

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:

“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respon¬dents from states that only required voters to say their name.”
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout



2. Now, a question: in the interests of honesty, and consistent with Occam's Razor, why not simply subscribe to this statement:

"...as a Liberal and Democrat, I agree that unless we get the black vote and the fraudulent vote, and that of convicted felons, we won't win any elections."

I'm sure that lots of folks who see the dangers of a one-party nation would be glad to give you Liberals/Democrats the franchise to fraudulent votes and convicted felon votes....

...in fact, you might call your part the 'Not-Yet-Convicted Party.'

Just tryin' to be helpful....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans want to suppress the black vote.

They did it in Florida in 2000, and look how the country suffered as a result.

1. Of course that is untrue...

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:

“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respon¬dents from states that only required voters to say their name.”
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout



2. Now, a question: in the interests of honesty, and consistent with Occam's Razor, why not simply subscribe to this statement:

"...as a Liberal and Democrat, I agree that unless we get the black vote and the fraudulent vote, and that of convicted felons, we won't win any elections."

I'm sure that lots of folks who see the dangers of a one-party nation would be glad to give you Liberals/Democrats the franchise to fraudulent votes and convicted felon votes....

...in fact, you might call your part the 'Not-Yet-Convicted Party.'

Just tryin' to be helpful....

Here's the rub on this alleged voter suppression and cheating nonsense.
The polling districts in question were democrat controlled.
Second and this is the most galling aspect of the charges, absentee ballots of military personnel overseas were denied from the count.