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...
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.
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! :)
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.
BUT .. pay close attention .. this only means that after the election (especially if Hillary loses), the efforts to get rid of these voter ID laws will be ATTACKED AGAIN.
We know from yesterdays vote that Wisconsin will be voting 90% for Hillary anyways.