Posted on 08/10/2016 12:03:56 PM PDT by jazusamo
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge James Peterson struck down what he deemed was a much too strict voter ID law in Wisconsin and suggested that proponents of the law were overly paranoid about voter fraud. As a result the judge's ruling, voters would not have to provide a valid form of identification at their polling stations and residency requirements would be relaxed. On Wednesday, however, a U.S. appeals court issued a stay in the case, allowing the "strict" practices to remain in place.
A Justice Department statement said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a stay concluding "both that the district court’s decision is likely to be reversed on appeal and that disruption of the state’s electoral system in the interim will cause irreparable injury.”
Similar efforts to challenge voter ID guidelines have surfaced in Texas and North Carolina.
The liberal war against voter ID laws have been disproved in the wake of record voter turnout in this year's primary elections.
So much for the "disenfranchisement" narrative.
What my a coincidence this is thrown out before... and reinstated AFTER... Ryno’s primary...
Ping!
States should just add to any voter laws that “any ID acceptable to sign up for federal government assistance would be acceptable”
Always nice to read a little good news...
Hopefully this will set a precedent to other states that have struck down voter ID.
And ALL OF THIS is IRRELEVANT.
If the State Supreme Court says it is “Constitutional” then the Inferior Federal Court can GO POUND SAND, for they have absolutely NO AUTHORITY in ANY STATE MATTER!
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
from Judge Moore
If a President Trump does happen, voter ID and voting list pruning MUST be addressed quickly.
The timing couldn’t be more obvious. ARGH!
So based on this, how did the US Supreme Court intervene in 2000 election in Florida?
Absolutely...I bet it will be with a AG at Justice that doesn’t bring a lawsuit against every state that enacts voter ID laws.
Voter ID was required yesterday in Wisconsin. The injunction did not go into effect for the August primary. HOWEVER, that activist judge’s ruling caused no end of confusion to the voters!!!!
No coincidence, the primary election in Wisconsin was still covered by the Voter ID law that the libbies tried to get overturned.
Yippee! Good News!
Thanks for the Ping! I have to get my ‘papers’ in order before November. I moved to a different County, though still in south-central Wisconsin. I was voting in my little Cow Town of 8K souls, including the cows, LOL!
I’ve moved to a MUCH more tolerable Township of 1,583 souls, also including the cows.
And a LOT fewer Liberals! :)
Because it is not a lower federal court.
Do you really think that the 10th amendment still has any teeth?
Nice theory from Judge Moore, but not a majority opinion.
The application of State Constitutional Standard has always been that it is a state supreme court matter only when the court takes a more restrictive position on the powers of the state not when the state court grants additional powers to the state.
I like those Townships of 1 or 2 thousand. :)
Figured you’d be happy about this, it’s a good sign.
Turnout in November is gonna be huge. YUGE!! ;)
Don't give us the obvious...which is to propagate vote fraud and make it easier to fake votes for Crooked Hillary.
All I can get from the idiots at DU, while in my disguise, is that it is so damned difficult to get a photo ID.
I call bullshit...well, I call it here, 'cause if I call it over there, they ban me pretty quickly, 'cause there ain't no arguing with them idiots.
But really, is it that damn hard for ANYONE, regardless of age or infirmity, to get a photo ID of the type required for voting?
I guarantee they can get one for food stamps, welfare, obamaphones, obamahomes, whatever else they need/want for free.
What's the damned problem?
I cannot find anyone in my circles of acquaintances, over the age of 16 or so, that does not have a photo ID or does not possess the correct paperwork to get a FREE one.
I do know a few, not personally, whose backs are slightly damp, that cannot get a photo ID, but that's the way it should be.
And a Matricular Card does not count.
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.