Posted on 05/13/2014 5:14:17 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
MADISON, Wis. -- State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen on Monday appealed a two-week-old decision striking down Wisconsin's voter ID law.
Van Hollen had promised an appeal as soon as U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee blocked the voter ID law for violating the U.S. Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act. Monday's filing puts the case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Van Hollen also asked Adelman to suspend his ruling while the appeal proceeds, saying his decision was too broad.
In his ruling, Adelman expressed skepticism that any voter ID law could pass court muster because minorities have a more difficult time than whites obtaining photo identification. He wrote that he would review any changes to the voter ID law that state lawmakers may make -- something attorneys in Van Hollen's Department of Justice said the judge doesn't have the authority to do.
"By entering such an excessively broad injunction, the court aims to give itself the power of a second Wisconsin governor, equipped with the authority to judicially 'veto' future voter photo ID laws that the Wisconsin Legislature might enact. The court has no such power," wrote Clayton Kawski, an assistant attorney general.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
...minorities have a more difficult time than whites obtaining photo identification.
Are judges not supposed to understand the constitution? Does Lynn not get that the constitution’s foundational principle is the rights of the individual, not the rights of a group? This means that even discussing how a decision would impact groups is ludicrous. One could talk of how it would impact one citizen vs another, but using that thinking, his reason for striking down the law evaporates.
Move it on up!
There is NO LEGAL BASIS for this ruling, and certainly no rational basis.
If we can’t require photo ID for voting, we can’t require it for anything.
Even Jimmie Carter sees a need for voter ID laws:
“The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.” That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. Its logic was straightforward and convincing: Americans must show photo identification for all kinds of day-to-day activities, such as cashing checks or entering government buildings. The many photo ID requirements we encounter in our daily lives are legitimate, effective security measures. Securing the ballot box is just as important.
I'd like to know what evidence the judge has to back up that opinion. What studies were done in Wisconsin that show this? Sounds like unfounded personal opinion. Actually, sounds like a liberal talking point, and we all know how often those are based on reality... ;-/
This judge is racist, as he assumes that minorities are less competent than whites. Why else would it be so difficult to get a photo ID?
I think this can be translated to: People wanting to commit voter fraud will have a harder time if this law exists, therefore I am striking it down.
If this stands, someone should immediately challenge the Brady law. If just showing ID has a disparate impact on minorities, then having a criminal background check AND showing ID to exercise a Consitutionally protected right is over the top. They can't have it both ways!
“minorities have a more difficult time than whites obtaining photo identification.”
Why? All you need is a birth certificate, a social security card and no outstanding warrants. How hard is that.
Oh Wait.......Yea now I get it.
because minorities have a more difficult time than whites obtaining photo identification.
Make mug shots a valid ID. Problem solved.
The judge isn’t a racist..he is an ideologue. They went forum shopping to find a judge they knew would rule in their favor. This happens over and over..the only way to put a stop to it is to impeach one....the others will soon get the message..
Maybe that’s the tactic that needs to be used - force a ruling on IDs for sudafed, alcohol, going into a public building, buying a gun,
using the same reasoning - “minorities have more problem than whites obtaining an ID”.
Until Congress begins to impeach judges who arrogate to themselves power they do not have, we will not escape intrusive, overreaching jurists. Judges are on equal footing with legislators and executives with respect to interpreting the Constitution and how laws comply. There is nothing in the text of the Constitution which empowers the judicial with final constitutional arbiter status. The House need to reestablish its dominion over the courts.
His ideology is racist. Liberals assume that minorities can't function without their help. Whenever they accuse Republicans and/or conservatives of racism, they're projecting.
Who is it that ALWAYS brings race into a discussion, even when it's not even remotely associated with the topic at hand? Liberals.
I could see where that could be an impediment to voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.