Posted on 12/14/2011 1:27:50 AM PST by bjorn14
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the State of Wisconsin on Tuesday over a new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, charging that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit says that the state is infringing on some citizens' right to vote and to be treated equally under the law and amounts to a kind of poll tax on voters who lack the documents needed to get an approved ID.
Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker, who is named in the lawsuit along with a long list of other state officials, have said they believe the measure will withstand a court challenge.
The action came Tuesday ahead of a scheduled speech by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in which he vowed to enforce civil rights protections amid a flurry of voter ID laws recently passed around the country. The Wisconsin lawsuit was filed in federal court in Milwaukee by the national ACLU and its Wisconsin affiliate and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty on behalf of a group of senior citizens, minorities and homeless residents.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Isn’t funny that the Guardian UK, one of the sleaziest rags in History behind Pravda and Hitler’s newspapers, allow comments on EVERYTHING!!!................ Except anything that makes Democrats or minorities look bad!
A few years back in the liberal bastion I reside in I walked up to the voter check-in-hag and flashed her my drivers license. The look of horror on her face almost made me burst out laughing. She said “I don’t need to see that” and shockingly looked away. So, naturally, I shoved it back at her and said “shouldn’t make sure it’s actually me?” to which she replied “No! Please put that away.”
The smirk on my face really p’d off pretty much everyone there. It made my day!
I think we should ALL consider doing this next election cycle just to make a point.
Photo IDs are a form of identification. Unless the law says that some people, because of ethnicity, sex, age, cannot have them, then how can they be unconstitutional? If photo IDs are unconstitutional, then asking for any form of identification for voting is unconstitutional.
The Dem Party could easily establish a hotline for people with no photo IDs to call, and the party could make sure they get one. But of course, that is not what they want. They know with the current system, they get virtually all of the illegal votes. They do not want to change that system. In short, voter IDs would diminish the numbers of illegal votes they get every election from dogcatcher to president.
Where is the ACLU lawsuit against the Obamacare requirement that citizens must purchase health insurance ,a measure that also violates the U.S. Constitution ??
The Supreme Court already ruled the Indiana and Georgia Voter ID Laws as constitutional. How much different is the Wisconsin Law from those.
Exactly.
That is the only part of the suit that makes even the slightest sense - the burden on the (tiny) number of people who have no photo-id, do not have any birth certificate or other acceptable proof of identity, and cannot afford to obtain the documents.
But the ACLU fails to note that equal protection also requires that my vote not be nullified by a fraudulent voter casting a vote multiple times. And since Wisconsin has election-day registration, with NUMEROUS holes in it (including a provision one can register to vote without ANY documentation if there is someone to corraborate that you live in the state), allowing voting without ID virtually assures that there will be fraud.
Now here's the kicker: the info is available to anybody who asks. Any private individual can then check that you really are who you say you are, and if you gave false info then your picture and fingerprints get assigned to an arrest warrant.
thanks...very interesting
florida’s has withstood decades of challenges.
the ussc has upheld such laws.
the report came out yesterday about a sham “denial” and today a law suit report.
This is all BS. Win or lose the ACLU WILL get attorney fees per statute. (where are the sanction motions?!)
Also even if the dems lose they will use this to deligitimize a win and demand “power sharing” on the basis of “fairness”. (ie we want to share the superbowl trophic because its only fair, for the chldren)
Yep. I think the Dumbocrats are terrified by these voter ID laws. Once their ability to cheat is eliminated, or at least severely curtailed, the difference in election results is going to create a very uncomfortable situation for them.
“.....There is no charge in Wisconsin to get the required ID to vote.”
__________________________________________________________
Same thing here in Indiana. A photo ID is FREE and will be given to anyone who applies for it. Indiana’s law was challenged but the challenge lost.
Other states would required people to PAY for the ID card had their laws ruled unconstitional because of that.
Hence, I think that the law in Wisc has merit and will be upheld. Otherwise, the dems and the ACLU would have filed suit a long time ago and BEFORE the Senator recalls.
In CA you may not exchange a bottles-and-cans recycling receipt without ID. What's the poor to do then?
All Wisconsin should have done is cut and paste Indiana’s law and be done with it. Its already made it through the courts and is very hard to get around.
I voted with an expired drivers license one year and my mom, who works at the county election room called me up and yelled at me for embarrassing her in front of the other old ladies. Seems they poked fun at her when they yanked my absentee ballot out and discarded it because I was too lazy to renew it on time, so she raised hell with me for being too lazy to get it renewed. Good grief, it wasn’t THAT long of of date....
Try getting on a airplane without a photo id or even cash a check. The effort here, even as odumbo knows, is to maximize the ease with which voter fraud occurs.
Voter ID laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court. This is strictly an attempt to get a judge to put an injunction on the law until after the presidential elections.
Under this way of thinking why do ACLU lawyers allow the powers to be to mandate that they have identification and a license prior to coming in to court? Why do they have to pass the state bar exam, etc?
Under this way of thinking why do ACLU lawyers allow the powers to be to mandate that they have identification and a license prior to coming in to court? Why do they have to pass the state bar exam, etc?
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.