Skip to comments.Wis. appeals court: Voter photo ID constitutional
Posted on 05/30/2013 10:07:04 AM PDT by SopaterEdited on 05/30/2013 10:14:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A Wisconsin appeals court says a law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls is constitutional.
Republicans passed a law in 2011 requiring voters to show photo identification, saying the mandate would help fight election fraud. The League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court in October 2011 challenging the law. Judge Richard Niess ruled the law was unconstitutional in March 2012, saying it would abridge the right to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wqow.com ...
D*mn right it is.
And we don’t need no stinkin’ judge to tell this to us.
What next? Does this lift the injunction for the next election?
What do you think would happen if I refused to show my ID at the TSA window, and start screaming about how I'm being discriminated against and denied my right to free travel?
In my bad-news stupor, I originally read this headline as “unconstitutional.” Tragically, I’m being trained to see bad news. Thank God I was mistaken!
If you have a passport, it would probably be confiscated and you'd be told whether or not it would return to you was "under consideration......by the State Department!"
i did the same thing
The WI legislature also is proposing a few “tweaks” to the law to clean up a couple of small issues in the next few weeks which should help even more.
Charlie Sykes had a local law guy on this morning that after the interview was over has Sykes feeling even better about the ruling.
It should be in effect next year.
Had this law been in effect in November, I guarantee you that Thompson would be the senator and the state’s electors would have likely been for Romney.
Agreed — however, as we have seen, much more damage can be done to this country via the ballot box, than could ever be done with a single airplance.
I have absolutely no idea what an “airplance” is. Maybe I meant “airplane”.
Would you possibly also forfeit your 2nd Ammendment rights?
I hate when I.D. law proponents make even small concessions on their original bill because it makes it appear that even they had some reservations about the effects. They should stand strong on every point. Otherwise, the liberal opposition jumps on these waffles to capitalize on them.
The "exempting poor people" concession is a joke. Who PAYS to vote? NO ONE!!!!!
On of the tweaks in this case specifically answers one of the lawsuits claims that they had no birth certificate due to being born in the south ages ago and therefore can’t get an ID.
Bullshit yes, but what the legislature is doing is allowing for that person to vote while signing an affidavit stating their vote is a lawful one. In any recount these would then be the first votes to be then challenged.
Suddenly there is a paper trail.
This is true. It does abridge the right of libtard constituencies to vote multiple times, to vote in the names of dead people and to vote in place of people who moved away, didn't show up to vote, etc.
Now that the courts have ruled sham elections to be the law of the land, I should have the right to pay my taxes with sham money from my Monopoly set. Change for a $500 gold note, please!
Thank you for referencing that article Sopater. Please bear in mind that my critique about the article below is not being directed at you.
The referenced article is another good example of articles that address Constitution-related issues in a way that are at least inadvertently targeted to low information voters. More specifically. not only is there no clarification of what constitutonal clause(s) that the League of Women voters and Judge Richard Niess claimed that the law violated, but neither do we hear from the Wisconsin Supreme Court why they found the law constitutonal.
Note that states can prohibit otherwise eligible people from voting on the basis of anything not expressly protected by the Constitution. And the Constitution prohibits the states from not allowing people to vote on the bases of race, sex, tax owed and age as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively.
In other words, since no amendment or clause in the Constitution says that the states cannot prohibit people from voting if they can’t show a photo ID, then the states are free to prohibit people from voting on that basis.
But the states have to administer photo ID voting laws in a way that such laws don’t discriminate against poor people. This is because, although such laws are still constitutional imo, bleeding heart activist judges can probably get away with declaring such laws unconstitutional.
Naah, it just forces them to buy more fake ID cards.
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.