Wisconsin, Texas voter ID laws blocked by courts

LATimes ^ | 10-9-14 | David G. Savage

[afraidfortherepublic]

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked Wisconsin from enforcing its strict voter identification law in this year's election..

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal from civil rights lawyers who argued it was too late to put the rule into effect.

Lawyers for the ACLU had noted the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of the photo identification.

It would be "chaos," they said, for the state now to have to decide whether or not to count such ballots because the voters failed to comply with the new law.

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. The six justices in the majority did not issue a written opinion to accompany the decision to lift an order by a lower court that would have allowed the law to take effect.

At nearly the same time, a federal judge in Texas struck down that state's new voter ID law on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to vote and discriminated against racial minorities.

Texas Atty. Gen. Gregg Abbott said the state would appeal the ruling.

The Wisconsin and Texas cases were the two most closely watched tests of new voter rules this year. In both states, the Republican-led legislatures sought to tighten the rules for voting and to require all registered voters who did not have driver's license to obtain a photo ID card at a state motor vehicles office.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Let’s face it, the U.S. Constitution is pretty dang wobbly right now and is on its last legs thanks to Obama and his ‘RATS. All we have left are the state constitutions. If a state constitution demands that a person must be a resident of that state to vote in their election, the state should have the right to make the voter prove that they are a resident. These Feral “judges” should have no say in how a state wants to run its elections. That’s just flat out moronic.

[boycott]

“Are they that freakin’ stupid?”
________________________________________

Yes, they are.

---

I know they’re that freakin’ stupid.

But we know the real reason they don’t want voter ID. It would make it easier to stop voter fraud.

[virgil]

Well, that would mean violence. Nobody has the stomach for that. Nobody wants to be called racist.

[re_nortex]

I think it is growing more and more clear that Roberts is another Souter.

Or Earl Warren.

[Amendment10]

"It’s crazy how rapidly this happened."

Progressives have arguably been lurking in the bushes from the time the USA was founded. In fact, the early 20th century 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution are regarded as products of the Progressive Movement.

[Organic Panic]

1 judge is all it takes. Where are the illegals? How many boxes of ballots are in trunks of cars ready to go? How many dead and moved voters on the rolls that Obama made it illegal to purge? Nothing to see here folks.

Why doesn’t Texas just tell the judge piss off. It is Texas law.

There is no constitutional right to vote. It is a state issue.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think it's simply that Roberts is Bush's Souter. Like father, like son.

In hindsight, maybe we would have been better off with Harriet Miers after all.

-PJ

[okie01]

In hindsight, maybe we would have been better off with Harriet Miers after all.

Miers morphed into Alito. That was a win.

Roberts was the guy from the git-go.

[Political Junkie Too]

Roberts wasn't initially nominated for Chief Justice. He was nominated to replace O'Connor. When Rehnquist died, Bush pulled Roberts' nomination and renominated him for the Chief Justice. Then Bush nominated Miers to replace O'Connor.

Maybe Bush should have kept Roberts as O'Connor's replacement, then Miers or someone else would be the Chief Justice now?

-PJ

[sourcery]

"struck down that state's new voter ID law on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to vote"

No such right exists. That's one reason Minor vs. Happersett was decided as it was.

[Jacquerie]

I hope more freepers comes to the realization that Scotus couldn't have p!ssed on the states as it has these past eighty years without the protection of the 17th Amendment.

We can thank the 17th for every judicial outrage since the New Deal.

[BobL]

In Texas the judge started hearing the case in September, a month ago. The case was filed 18 months ago. That alone should be enough to THROW OUT the decision.

[Octar]

Did they also rule that food stamps are unconstitutional because it is too difficult for the “poor” to get them?

[savedbygrace]

And yet they have previously ruled that everyone has to provide ID to police when asked:

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=security/bigbrother/supreme-court-backs-police-on-showing-ID.txt

[God luvs America]

Lawyers for the ACLU had noted the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of the photo identification.

if true that's just pure stupidity on the state's part.

[Labyrinthos]

Odious. We are becoming a banana republic.

WRONG! Most third-world banana republics require voter ID.

[daler]

Perhaps it's time conservatives began playing the same game, then.

"Your ID, please?

"Don't have one. Now gimme a ballot."

[Envisioning]

I thought this was already a done deal in Texas? (((ping))