Posted on 03/12/2012 12:39:19 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
Madison - A Dane County judge permanently enjoined the state's new voter ID law on Monday - the second judge in a week to block the requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls.
"A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence - the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote - imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people," said the eight-page opinion by Dane County Judge Richard Niess. "It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution. This is precisely what 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 does with its photo ID mandates."
Niess' ruling goes further than the one issued by another judge last week because it permanently halts the law. Tuesday's order by Dane County Judge David Flanagan blocked the law for the April 3 presidential primary and local elections, but not beyond that.
The latest order may make it harder for the state to put the voter ID law into effect before the April 3 election because it would have to win two appeals in less than four weeks. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has asked for a stay of the earlier order, and he is expected to appeal it this week.
Kevin Kennedy, director of the state Government Accountability Board, said his election agency is telling local clerks to keep training to implement the law so they're prepared to do so if it's suddenly restored.
"We'll just live with what is there," Kennedy said.
Whether Wisconsin's photo ID law will stand is widely considered to be decided by a higher court - a point the judge in the case made from the bench during a hearing Friday. There are four lawsuits pending against it - two in Dane County court and two...
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Don’t forget that there are about 15 million green card holders, i.e., Legal Permanent Residents, in this country. They are entitled to SS# and DL. They have almost all of the rights and benefits of citizenship except they cannot vote. We need to ensure that they don’t until they become citizens.
So there is no “right”.
More of a “right” for voting than there is for abortion.
If you don’t think there is a right to vote then try to stop someone from exercising that “right”. Unless you’re a member of the Black Panthers you’d be jailed for violating the right to vote.
But I agree with you that the Constitution doesn’t list the right to vote among it’s amendments.
Apparently it is found in the Pre-Constitution. Any infringement on that right is thereby Unpre-Constitutional.
The horror!
There have been reports of multiple, unrelated people registered at the same address, including warehouses or other non-residential addresses. They don’t actually need to be voting in the stead of an actual, living person. Hence, the mass-registration drives by ACORN and successor or similar groups.
You’re right that it would be difficult for some individual to carry out on a whim, but that isn’t what we’re concerned about. You’re also right that ending same-day registration would reduce the problem, but the registration drives conducted by leftist front groups are about corrupting even the pre-registration process.
I think we should only allow male property owners over the age of 25 years to vote, the only exception being combat veterans.
Government employees, including politicians, and their families should not be allowed to vote, for very obvious reasons.
It would allow Due Process for the election and properly passed legislation.
Its unconstitutional to let illegal immigrants vote
America the Corrupt!
And who says the USA is still a free nation?
Passes the duck test for a dictatorship rather than a democracy.
So...any illegal can vote multiple times to decide our Nation’s future, but to get on a plane, bus, etc, one must suffer sexual assault from the TSA, Obama’s goon squads?
Police State where the People’s Voice means squat.
A One Party Media ala the old Soviet Union....
All this the downstream fallout from 9/11?
Thank you Greatly! So SCOTUS decided back on April 28, 2008
that these Laws were Constitutional! Yet, four years later, the Obama HUSSEIN MUSLIM TERRORIST CABAL is ignoring and trampling over Established Law and the United States Constitution and State Rights and Laws everywhere!
Tell me this Phantom with NO KNOWN HISTORY is NOT AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST put in the Oval Office by the 57 ISLAMIC CALIPHATES!
This, as well as all others overturned, is just a boat load of horse poop! Some lawyers with big cajones need to speak out on this.
There is nothing wrong with requiring an ID, we do it for every other thing in this country. As long as the law requires EVERYONE to provide the ID, there isn’t anything unconstitutional about it. No discrimination involved.
I’m beginning to see more and more evidence that our government is aiding and abetting criminals by allowing illegals to stay in this country. And siding with them more than legal citizens, using our constitution in shady ways.
Good luck to AG Van Hollen!
Ummm.... actually, after 1776/77 the colonies had the Articles of Confederation for about 10 years before the Constitutional Convention.
I don't have the dates completely correct here (all of the dates below), but it appears that Wisconsin joined the Union on May 29, 1848.
Prior to that it was the Territory of Wisconsin, from July 3, 1836, until May 29, 1848.
Prior to that it was within the Northwest Territory that existed from July 13, 1787, until March 1, 1803. (guess it was still in a portion of the area formerly known as the Northwest Territory from 1803 to 1836)
Prior to that it was part of the Indian Reserve, a territory under British rule set aside in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 for use by American Indians, which was assigned to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1783), which overlaps the period when the Articles of Confederation were in effect, as well as the time when the US Constitution was in force, as well as prior to US independence.
So, did the American Indians have a right to vote in the area that later became Wisconsin as specified by the Treaty of Paris? Or else, there might be something amiss in your line of argument, interesting as it may be.
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.