BREAKING: Federal judge rejects Wisconsin voter ID law, says it unfairly burdens poor and minorities.
— The Associated Press (@AP) April 29, 2014
BREAKING: Federal judge rejects Wisconsin voter ID law, says it unfairly burdens poor and minorities.
— The Associated Press (@AP) April 29, 2014
124 comments:
Fascinating. You need photo ID as part of your application for an EBT Card and SNAP benefits.
But it unfairly burdens the poor?
Facts - who needs 'em?
Because minorities are incapable of accomplishing the barest tasks of modern life, like obtaining an ID card that you need for practically every other activity. Alas, poor minorities. Unable. Incapable. They should definitely be taken care of by the wise government masters because they can't do anything. Like little children. So sad.
Because poor people don't have any ability to do anything and are just poor poor poor. And always will be poor. It is their caste. Their lot in life.
Because making people identify themselves might stop voter fraud and Democrats might lose an election that was fairly run.....ooops....that one snuck in there didn't it
Clinton appointee.
You don't expect Hillary to win this thing all by herself, do you?
It's not a judiciary. It's a supervote status.
I remember being very poor. I don't recall it making me an idiot.
Could the court order free unburdened ID for the poor?
Does this mean the issue must sink to the supreme court?
When I bring scrap metal up to the yard, they won't pay me until I give them my drivers license.
They can't win without vote fraud.
Every state the Romster won had a voter ID law and most of the ones he didn't have been shown to have serious violations - 44,000 registered in both MD and VA (DC, PA, NY, NJ, DE, NC, TN, WV, and GA also being checked), 36,000 shown to have voted in NC and one other (of 27 others) state; IA, CO, and DC have more on the rolls than are eligible, 20% of names on OH rolls are bogus.
One study showed enough irregularities that vote fraud in the '12 election provided enough bogus votes to give the Democrats that "stunning" victory.
Does this mean the issue must sink to the supreme court?
The Supremes have just recently rejected a higher... I mean lower court's decision to uproot the will of the voters.
Lets see if they still feel the same when it comes to voter ID.
Shit, why bother voting?
The locksmith my daughter called this morning made her show her driver's license.
I guess poor people just stay locked out.
People can be ordered to buy insurance, for which they need ID, presumably, but they can't be ordered to get an ID?
The world makes less and less sense to me everyday.
I expect Sonia will re-double her efforts... 58 x 2
Time to start breaking up those big Lefty states?
PS Where's nd and Troop?
I know they're watching what's said at TOP.
Even the friggin' UN believes in voter ID.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that someone that can't manage the task of getting a valid form of identification isn't someone who ought to be allowed to vote.
Personally I'm just happy Chip S has come out of hiding in his kung fu fortress.
What's unconstitutional about unfairly burdening the poor and minorities?
Oh, the judges must not have been conservative ideologues! I get it now!
The constitution doesn't mandate responsibilities, Bunny (and the rest of you). It only guarantees rights, and often in a way that requires them to be equally guaranteed. Sorry if that sticks in the craw of folks who get off on taking advantage of unequal access to rights, but that's life in a constitutional republic.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that someone that can't manage the task of getting a valid form of identification isn't someone who ought to be allowed to vote.
Lol. Do you hear that, Jim Crow! Are you listening, Southern 1870s Democrats! We're here to revive poll taxes, literacy requirements and the rest of the segregation-era voting restrictions!
Same bullshit different century.
Personally, I had an esp thing occur this morning.
Went like this: Awoke from a dream in which I encountered a person rarely seen. World traveler type, anxious he'll miss something before he croaks so goes goes goes. We don't care for each other all that much and we only speak maybe once a year tops, maybe every two years, and stilted at that.
I had emailed a few times months ago with no response. The dream caused me to wake up a bit cross for being blown off, resolute to dismiss the whole thing completely. To not bother. Ever. Forget it entirely.
Opened my email BANG responses to both previous months old emails were waiting.
Now is that coincidence or what?
Rhythm and Balls said...
What's unconstitutional about unfairly burdening the poor and minorities?
Voting without a valid ID enables voter fraud: a non-citizen lacking ID can more easily vote and anyone can vote more than once in two different precincts using their and then someone else's identity. Please tell me how and why this isn't so, R&B.
Also, please justify why you believe this is OK.
To guys like Ritmo, Meade, and Crack, it's always Jim Crow throughout the nation.
A fear of theoretical voting fraud does not justify a real abrogation of rights.
There has been no evidence of widespread voting fraud. Just as whatever fears motivated literacy tests, poll tax receipts and other Jim Crow legislation were not based on any legitimate reason for depriving rights. But fears are usually like that - especially in political contexts: Irrational.
Before that, it was assumed that the franchise should be restricted to property owners. Or to men.
It's about restricting the franchise for even more blatant and opportunistic political ends. Any GOP voter who doesn't realize that is simply being duped.
Ritmo BTW, was the guy arguing a few weeks ago for enfranchising felons in prison until I pointed out how easy it would be for a small prison town to vote itself a new mayor. Then he thought about it and said they should be able to vote only in national elections.
Ritmo and Erich Holder are both OK with serial murders and rapists voting on all matters sundry.
To guys like Ritmo, Meade, and Crack, it's always Jim Crow throughout the nation.
Hey, you're the conservative - or at least, you sympathize with them for voicing an ideology for you.
Plus ca change...
It's about fear and restricting democracy. Nothing more.
We understand you fear chaos, and democracy is a chaotic thing. People vote for their own interests over the elites to whom you look to make every thing seem so nice and orderly. How messy, that democracy.
So you have to restrict it. Demographic shifts have shown the new GOP desperateness. We heard it from Mike Turzai. That's how it goes.
Fight that change. You can't fight demography, so keep trying it through other means. We know.
Ritmo BTW, was the guy arguing a few weeks ago for enfranchising felons in prison until I pointed out how easy it would be for a small prison town to vote itself a new mayor. Then he thought about it and said they should be able to vote only in national elections.
So what's wrong with that? You're unfamiliar with the concept of changing one's mind in accordance with better facts or arguments? It's almost like you're belittling yourself for having come up with a valid point. Interesting angle for a guy ardently defending his POV to take... I'll make sure to keep that in mind during the next debate - how unseriously you take yourself or expect to be taken.
It's chizputz of missing the larger point of your wish to enable and coddle criminals. And the fact that you couldn't see through your own logical phallacy.
Devolving into puns as a way to disregard the difference between issues important to the management of local prison-town and issues important to the country as a whole.
At least you're laughing at not taking yourself seriously...
Ex-felon voting rights I only ever considered through the prism of national elections. I only considered local elections once Punny Boy brought those up.
So it's almost like he never noticed his own phallacy of forgetting that national elections exist, and decide matters much greater than who runs the local prison-town and how they should go about doing it.
Cross posted at TOP:
One out of every fourteen Americans is not a citizen. That alone should be reason alone for Voter ID.
OK, having looked into this a little bit I think I can see the argument against this law: A WI non-driver ID card requires a trip to the DMV and $33.50.
Seems like a reasonable compromise would be to make a photo voter ID free, and available at sites reasonably close to concentrations of poor people. You'd still have to provide proof that you were qualified to register in order to get an ID that specified you were eligible to vote.
Non-driver IDs vary from state to state, but, if a poor person can go out and get a license (and many do), what's the problem with a non-driver ID costing a couple of bucks?
And 33.50 doesn't seem all that onerous, especially since they usually are good as long as a license.
I'll bet a carton of cigarettes is at least that much.
Or cell phone use for a month.
PS The Jim Crow thing, like poverty, is a dodge people like Ritmo use to justify their corruption.
The bottom rail's on the top, as they used to say, and, to quote VDH, we have the most comfortable poverty in the history of the human race.
(as long as other people's money holds out)
It means this: people who are willing to pay the fee for a driver's license get the right to vote as a free add-on. People to whom a driver's license isn't worth getting (b/c they have no car) have to pay $33.50 for the right to vote.
I don't see how that's constitutional.
There is a fix already in the works. Governor Walker is calling a special session of the Assembly to revise Wisconsin's Voter ID law so it is exactly like Indiana's, which was recently upheld by the US Supreme Court.
And Judge Adleman, a progressive hack, can pound sand.
Chip S. said...
It means this: people who are willing to pay the fee for a driver's license get the right to vote as a free add-on. People to whom a driver's license isn't worth getting (b/c they have no car) have to pay $33.50 for the right to vote.
I don't see how that's constitutional.
All the things for which you have to show a license, the non-driver ID does the same, so it's a lot more than a vote.
Vell, mein herr, your papers, bitte.
Haz's comment is why I like Walker. He shows he is smart and efficient [why re-invent the wheel] by borrowing legislation that has already been blessed by SCOTUS.
AJ, one of my neighbors is a transplant from the Deep South. His take on Walker is "Ah lake Walkah acuz he gits shit did."
I was coming at it differently than Chip S., thinking people on SNAP, etc. need the ID or DL, those who are not, don't.
How about some love for Mitch Daniels, who actually got the shit done originally?
You don't get much deeper than that, Haz ;)
Care to make a token effort at coherence?
This judge is liberal even by Wi. standards.
When they're short a judge in Madison Adelman LOVES to come here and work.
I see that your reading comprehension is getting even worse.
Chip actually suggested it be free. If only reading comprehension were free and universal too.
Ah, ok. Well you stated your case (perhaps due to argument with the incoherent edutcher) in a convoluted way. If your argument's that it is indeed unconstitutional to charge (or create any burden) for enjoying such a right, then you're on the right side and it's the others here arguing over that who are playing the Dixiecrats. Apologies.
Ritmo's just mad because non-driver IDs aren't as arcane a subject as he wanted everybody to think.
deborah said...
I was coming at it differently than Chip S., thinking people on SNAP, etc. need the ID or DL, those who are not, don't.
Almost anything requires an ID anymore, so I'm wondering how those not on the dole get by.
One would think a SNAP or EBT card would be acceptable, but I don't doubt for a minute forgery is pandemic. Also, different states use different criteria - some states allow credit cards or even Social Security
Integrity means it is OK to call Edutcher incoherent for his policy disagreements?
Good question, Ed. Say a 30 year-old does not have an ID. How will he or she navigate? Where will they be barred? 'Night all :)
No ed. I just don't like it when slithery eels like yourself confuse the discussion by showing us just how difficult it is for you to follow the constitution at the first sign of its relevance (Section 2 of amendment 14, in this case). "I'm poor, so I know," is not an appropriate argument to use here, and it didn't excuse your flubbing the point earlier.
Ed is unconstitutional, AJ. He's free to buck the 14th amendment, he just has to accept his need to make that case to the 38 states required to agree with him for repeal, first.
He doesn't get to go around arguing that his familiarity with poverty entitles him to decide what rights the poor get to have or be denied.
Why shouldn't adults be able to get a DMV issued "Non-voting" ID for free?
Why $33? Does the driver's license cost that much?
In a sane USA, the inability to get something as simple as an ID which be a disqualification from voting. If you're so dumb you can't get an ID, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
But then you don't even have to speak English to vote, or (in certain parts of the USA) be a citizen.
According to Justice Stevens, writing for the majority in upholding the Indiana law, the fact that the ID card is free was a key consideration:
Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.
Some of you may wonder I get testy. Well, it seems that as soon as things start moving along in a sane direction, a guy like rc comes along and now proposes doing away with the sort of things guaranteed by the civil rights act. New versions of the same staples of pre-MLK Dixie keep rearing their ugly heads here, and then those ugly heads either get scratched, wondering how those comparisons got made, or inflame in rage at the insinuation of what they're obviously resurrecting.
Maybe it's because I missed Queen Shouty's uproarious defense of racism as a "rational" phenomenon yesterday. Yep, I noticed that too now and realize the sense it makes that he'd finally come out with saying such a thing.
In any event, there's a difference between rights and privileges. If GOPers want respect, they need to learn the difference and question the way privileges are awarded instead of constantly harping on ways to chip away at basic rights.
That's exactly right, Chip.
Given how much connies complain about miniscule adjustments to tax rates - esp. among the super-wealthy, you'd think they'd have a better understanding of the unconstitutionality of property rights requirements for basic rights like voting.
The 14th amendment did it most smartly. Just let the states know that if they want to restrict voting rights of the eligible public, their representation will be decreased proportionately.
Ritmo hates facts (what Lefty doesn't?), so he hides behind his faux idea of the Constitution.
Nobody's being denied anything somebody else gets. Showing an ID is expected of everyone.
BTW, anybody on welfare or disability or eligible for food stamps can afford the price.
Sorry, this one's a crock, and Stevens is one of those closet Communists who relies on penumbras and emanations to justify his nonsense; these days he is talking about limiting speech in the interest of the Common Good.
God knows those Rightists will upset the whole apple cart if they keep expecting a fair vote and stuff.
PS Ritmo's panic is proof of how the Demos need vote fraud.
He wrote FOR THE MAJORITY, you dumb, unemployable fuck!
What's the matter with you. (Rhetorical question). YOU LACK THE SENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WHOLE BASIS OF THESE ATTEMPTS HEARKEN BACK TO THE IMPULSE TO PROVE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (AND OTHER CLAIMS TO ELITE STATUS) AS A QUALIFICATION - the exact sort of claims that someone as miserably unprosperous as you would fail at demonstrating UTTERLY.
You keep arguing against your self-interest. That's fine - as your goals are evil and your motives confused and corrupt. Just keep those arguments confined to yourself though, please! Others don't want to use their own weaknesses against them - and those of us with better things to do don't want any part of that, either.
But you - you don't realize you are defined by them. You think you are elite. You think you stand apart. And you condescend to those whom you mistakenly believe to be beneath you, while actually kicking yourself in YOUR OWN ass.
But that last part's fine. So I'll do what I can to remind you of the "inferior" status on your own part that qualifies you to precisely such just desserts as you would dole out to the others like you.
AKA: ED DOESN'T HAVE MUCH PROPERTY BUT HE's GOT AN I.D. CARD!!!
I could see Comment Home eventually stumbling upon the fact that they'd one day be unwittingly depriving Palladian of a vote, also - or subjecting him to greater hardship just to get one. And then, all of a sudden, opinions would change. Oh, this could never happen to us. We need a way of proving how good we are. Whoops! Deprived the vote to one of our own... how horrible. Guess we made a mistake. Isn't it wonderful that we need personal examples to learn basic morality? Oh well, at least we don't vote Dem-o-crat. And so on and so on.
"There is a fix already in the works."
Yes, but it won't reverse the ruling. The "fix" should have been part of the original law. If not that they should have amended the law much sooner. I believe that there was a bill in progress that failed recently.
Even a dummy like me noted years ago that the way to fend off the legal argument that the ID process was an unacceptable deterrent to voting was to make that process as slick as possible - outreach, assistance, review of odd cases, cost free.
Wisconsin's Republican's didn't get that done. They failed. They gave the left gave a weapon that could be used against them.
Arguing that it is already easy enough for a minimally competent voter to get an ID may feel good but it won't carry the case in a Democrat's courtroom.
Liberal Madisonians aren't the only idiots in Wisconsin.
Rhythm and Balls said...
He wrote FOR THE MAJORITY, you dumb, unemployable fuck!
Ed is a hedgehog, he doesn't know much but he knows one great thing, how to get under other people's skin. I doubt it was a skill that served him well in the area of employment.
Rhythm and Balls said...
He wrote FOR THE MAJORITY, you dumb, unemployable fuck!
Gee, Ritmo sounds like the Baghdad Bob of TOP.
When you can't win, you start screaming epithets.
And when was the majority right simply because it was the majority? SCOTUS makes lousy law all the time.
Lawrence, Kelo, Dred Scott, Plessy - the list is endless.
YOU LACK THE SENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WHOLE BASIS OF THESE ATTEMPTS HEARKEN BACK TO THE IMPULSE TO PROVE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (AND OTHER CLAIMS TO ELITE STATUS) AS A QUALIFICATION
But that's not the case here. What applied in 1898 has no bearing on the situation on the ground today. Retarded and severely handicapped people have their own IDs.
BTW, in case anybody hasn't noticed, lots fewer people own property, thanks to the Lefties.
Having an ID has nothing to do with owning property - you know it's just another Lefty dodge, sweetie.
You think you are elite. You think you stand apart. And you condescend to those whom you mistakenly believe to be beneath you, while actually kicking yourself in YOUR OWN ass.
Sony, line 1. Your projector is ready.
I.D. cards. Name on a piece of paper. With a picture.
Ed's daddy gave him a name. Not much else. Not the property that these efforts at reinstitutionalizing voting as a franchise of the elite represent. But he did get a name. And he wants that damn name on an I.D.
Everyone needs something to feel proud of. No matter how meager.
Ed gets his I.D. It's what makes more eliti-er than the other poverty cases.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
He wrote FOR THE MAJORITY, you dumb, unemployable fuck!
Ed is a hedgehog, he doesn't know much but he knows one great thing, how to get under other people's skin. I doubt it was a skill that served him well in the area of employment.
Telling the truth annoys only those who need lies to survive. Which is why the little gremlins come out when the scam is in danger.
Troll and Ritmo spend their days drifting from comment board to comment board under all manner of accounts.
It must be nice in Mom's basement, You're right up against the furnace when the cold wind blows.
Ed's daddy gave him a name!
..then he walked away!
His daddy gave him a name.
Was it easy for Ed to "be a scared white boy in a black neighborhood?"
@Ritmo: You poisoned your good faith on this question when you went out on a very unpopular limb, supporting voting rights for felons in prisons. It was a very impolitic position to take, not only because it is deeply unpopular and would lose ground for your brand of voter rights, but also because it really showed what you were angling for: a stepwise breakdown of law and order in the US. Convicts vote for their interests which is to get out of the joint ASAP and politicians pander to constituents.
And you can't take the racist approach of Crack and say that 1 in 9 of all prisoners in the US are black guys serving time for smoking a joint.
chickenlittle said...
@Ritmo: You poisoned your good faith on this question when you went out on a very unpopular limb, supporting voting rights for felons in prisons.
Wikipedia - "Most democracies give convicted criminals the same voting rights as other citizens.
Many countries allow inmates to vote. Examples include Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, and Zimbabwe."
At least some of the prisoners are wrongfully convicted or convicted of crimes that will no longer be considered crimes in some future world (sodomy, pot smoking).
Suffice it to say I'm not putting much stock in the mindblind to make viable accusations of "faith" and I resent your trying to glorify yourself in doing so by claiming an appeal to popularity, whether on this blog or in America. Unpopularity is your friend Shouting Thomas finally admitting that his love of racism results from a "rational" phenomenon (perhaps among caveman clans - not in a modern country with no ethnic majority of 310 million though. Nice try). Of course, you never have an unkind word for his Dixiecrat-ism, so perhaps you agree with it (as a number of your posts would indicate). But keep that crap of veiling/unveiling motives to yourself. Unlike him (or you), I'll actually TELL you what I think. You two only wish you had the balls to do that.
I am a defender of rights as the basis of law. Unlike you, I don't look the other way when super-wealthy white collar felons buy and influence their way off the hook. I am for felons voting (nationally) because I don't believe they could influence laws and elections to make those things more "pro-sociopath" (and regardless of stats - you're still wrong on the prison-industrial complex. We incarcerate way more than are dangerous to society as a giveaway to corporate prisons).
You have less faith in others, though. Of course you are scared that a big government might lack enough power to keep "bad" votes at bay. But Occam's Razor says that's rooted in your fear of others, not in any of the horribly undocumented/flimsy/wrong "supports" you appealed to for the argument you're using against me at the moment. And your opportunism's showing. I even agreed with you in part on something and you couldn't get over that - so you went full-bore paranoia and try to strip me down over the larger issue - simply because you know you can't win it. You only had a point on local concerns and you know it.
I expect better of you and wish you would grow up enough one day to finally, and consistently provide it.
Talk about "bad faith". Bad faith if a fear of voting. Somebody's in the wrong country.
ARM & Ritmo: You're both missing the teaching moment going around regarding "reflex voters"; cf. Althouse here.
Giving convicts voting rights (especially at the behest of Erich Holder) is deeply unpopular at the moment. Let's just say it is, unless you want to argue that it isn't.
You guys lose/turn-off swing voters in droves when you state your real intentions.
I'm not interested in going around and making it a "wedge issue" to fight about politically -- (although, it's interesting to see where the public went on a number of the GOP "wedge issues" from yesteryear... more in favor of gay marriage, etc).
I think the public would probably evolve on not depriving convicts a rights to vote. I think that they will realize that, like with marijuana, inertia is rooted in a fear of lacking control over something that they don't need to fear or shouldn't see a need to control in the first place.
I should be nicer to you for having brought up chaos, disorder. I don't seek it, I just accept that the need to control is stronger and usually less legitimate. If something needs to be controlled to guarantee a right, so be it. But I don't see control (or order) as an end, just as a mean, or as a pesky, necessary concern among a number in a democracy.
Stop signs are necessary controls. Traffic lights. Queues.
To my mind, not allowing some voices greater access or volume than others in an election (or over the internet) might be a necessary control.
But what people put in their bodies, how they affect their minds, or how they could vote (on something over which there's no reason to deprive them a decision)? I see those as unecessary controls.
I haven't read the ruling, but I do know ID cards ARE free in Wisconsin: "If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and would like a Wisconsin ID card to vote (although it's not currently required), please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) application) or when applying online."
So NOW what leg does that ruling stand on?!?
I see the Lefty circle jerk went on for a full hour.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm
This whole voter ID is a burden to the poor argument is nonsense. The advocates keep (virtually) shouting it loudly. As I have said in other comments, the reality does not match the false advocacy. Where I live the "State ID" costs $10, a fee that can be waived for evidence of indigence.
Now I've also commented that I live in a community where I am a minority among mostly immigrants, most of whom qualify as "poor." I will also tell you that I have yet to meet one individual among my 40,000 neighbors, who does not have a photo ID of some kind. When I stand in line to vote I am asked, by a poll worker, to provide a Photo ID, just like everyone else in that line. If no such ID is available, then a utility bill and a signature on a statement of residency, providing you are registered to vote, can be substituted. Oddly, I have never seen that necessity arise in the past 30+ years of voting in my precinct. I am sure it might happen, but I have not witnessed it.
Mainly, just who has actually witnessed any volume of voteres turned away from voting? Where did this occur in this century?
I have never seen a registered voter turned away for lack of a Photo ID. In my little community where a substantial number do not speak English well, and shop for clothes at Salvation Army, it seems that even then they manage to acquire a Photo ID of some kind.
So who are these people so deprived that they cannot acquire this ID?
Is the real objective of the advocates for no Photo ID to relieve the citizenry from bothering to register to vote at all?
BTW...the "property argument" vis a vis an ID is also nonsense. A government issued ID card is not property, except of the state. It can be revoked or withdrawn more or less at will. That is why in most instances these cards are called "licenses." Like software we all "buy" but do not own. Why is that hard to just admit?
Since I switched from Windows XP to Windows 8 (or is it 7?), I'm unable to create a link the way that I used to. Can someone provide the formula? Thanks
ash173@frontiernet.net
R & B said ..
I could see Comment Home eventually stumbling upon the fact that they'd one day be unwittingly depriving Palladian of a vote, also - or subjecting him to greater hardship just to get one.
WTF are you talking about? His travail here was purely the result of aspersion, false in fact, by the TOP Toad (aka Hobbit) otherwise known as LSL.
I am in regular contact with Palladian, as recently as today, and I will tell you that you are full of shit.
Palladian would tell you himself, if he felt you had a need to know, that he removed himself from this masthead for personal reasons that are, frankly, none of your business.
Never mind that several of us here stepped up to assist when the need was greatest. Did you?
Maybe you did, R & B...however, if so, he's never mentioned it, all the while expressing gratitude for others by name.
Talk is cheap. Did you step up? Or is your "concern" rhetorical?
You lose your good faith credit when you make stuff up.
It was 30º this morning with a dusting of snow on the ground. Right now it's 34º, proving that global warming is real.
I still use...
This HTML entry to post links on Windows 7 Pro...and it works.
Don't know about Windows 8..any one who does, please advise. I may need to know this sooner than later as I help my better half upgrade her offices' computers. Most recent one was upgraded to Windows 7 Pro, but that may not be an option much longer. I am a OS putz, with quasi-expertise only in applications.
Damn.... I typed in my email address in the last post...but it didn't appear. Either an OE whoops or whatever...it is in my profile.
1 out of every 14 Americans is not a citizen and not eligible to vote.
Just keep saying that to those who question the need for Voter ID laws.
Wisconsin ID
This link has a copy of the decision. The "unique burden" argument starts on page 22.
The strongest of these (if you accept that voting should be entirely cost free) are the cost of a birth certificate, restricted DMV office hours, and failure of DMV supervisory officials to properly use their discretionary authority in hard cases.
Each of those is easily soluble at a modest cost to the state. For example, one free birth cert, Saturday DMV openings, and a few disciplinary actions against stick-in-the-ass DMV bureaucrats.
The weakest is that homeless people who live on the street are unable to provide an address. Yeah.
In addition, it looks to me like the state did a poor job of making its case and was outlawyered by the plaintiff's attorneys. This, along with the Republican legislature's failure to anticipate and insure against his counter-arguments gave the judge his opening to make a political decision.
AllenS said...
"When I bring scrap metal up to the yard, they won't pay me until I give them my drivers license."
What if, instead of requiring drivers' licenses or photo ID's, there was a law making it a felony that carries a maximum penalty of up to 3 1/2 years behind bars and a $10,000 fine for scrap metal fraud? Do you think that would cut down on the growing out-of-control pernicious crime of scrap metal fraud?
What if, instead of requiring drivers' licenses or photo ID's, there was a law making it a felony that carries a maximum penalty of up to 3 1/2 years behind bars and a $10,000 fine for scrap metal fraud? Do you think that would cut down on the growing out-of-control pernicious crime of scrap metal fraud?
Is that the penalty meted out for a convicted voter fraud?
So according to Ritmo's and ARM's druthers, voter fraud could be rewarded with enfranchisement: go to prison for voter fraud and get your right to vote!
Holy perverse incentive!
Another voter fraud scenario: how many out-of-state students vote twice: once in their home state absentee and again in Wisconsin? Is this sort of thing even checked?
bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Seriously, how many fucking minorities don't have ID's and how many programs are there in Wisconsin to help them get one. This is such rampant horseshit that this federal judge belies the use of logic to dictate that his foolish edict is about as worthless as the toilet paper they wipe their asses with.
Rhythm and Balls said...
What's unconstitutional about unfairly burdening the poor and minorities?
Oh, the judges must not have been conservative ideologues! I get it now!
Your argument or lack thereof still doesn't highlight how or why these people are incapable of getting an ID or rather the argument that is made on why they shouldn't need on to vote because of the burdensome nature of obtaining an ID?
What if the state came to them instead, would that satisfy the nature of the argument?
It's the law, Meade. What I think doesn't matter. The powers that be thought it would be a good idea, that's why THEY made the law.
You don't get out much, do you?
You're right, Allen... TOP Toad doesn't get out much. He doesn't know what "scrap metal fraud" is apparently, or even that the penalties can be larger than he poses. Here is an Example.
In short, "scrap metal fraud" is when you fail to deliver metals you promised to deliver for a price paid in advance. It is NOT sneaky pete's swiping drain spouts, gutters, A/C tubing, and aluminum doors in the night.
In my sojourn in the private sector I worked closely with scrap metal processors and steel mills. I am aware of what safeguards and what crime potentials exist.
"I am aware of what safeguards and what crime potentials exist."
And in your vast awareness, Airdog, are the crime potentials for vote fraud about equivalent to scrap metal fraud? Or is the analogy a little weak? Is it the photo ID rule that safeguards us from the potential of the AllenSes of the world breaking bad in the scrap metal economy or is it the (rare) example of a scrap metal fraudster getting 2 1/2 years behind bars and having to pay restitution?
As I understand this case in Wisconsin, there was no significant evidence of voters scamming the ballot box in ways that a photo ID requirement would've prevented. So the court's question becomes: Why add a burden to voting where no problem exists? The court could find no reason.
But in your sojourn through the legal world would you say the court got it wrong?
Evidently, the possibility of 3 1/2 years behind bars and $10,000 in fines adequately prevents people from voting twice and committing other fraudulent voting crimes. If that's wrong and you have other evidence proving the wrongness of it, you should share it with the 7th Circuit court where predictably there will be an appeal of this decision.
What if the fines & punishment AND photo ID are needed to prevent fraud?
Why must it be an either/or scenario?
You know what else they do lawnboy? When you junk a vehicle they check the VIN and write it down. Do you know why they do that? Are you also aware that everyone who scraps has to provide an ID. You seem to think that it's just me.
You haven't done much in your life, have you?
Only enough to know the difference between the laws of scrap metal commerce and the laws of democratic elections.
You?
"What if the fines & punishment AND photo ID are needed to prevent fraud?"
Which fraud? Scrap metal fraud? Or voting fraud?
Which fraud? Scrap metal fraud? Or voting fraud?
Fraud fraud
Look around the world, Meade. Voter fraud happens. Why are we immune (as you seem to believe)? Why doesn't it happen more often?
"Look around the world, Meade."
The world was not in the court's purview in this case. The state of Wisconsin was. Within that purview, there was a trial. Evidence was presented.
I know this is difficult for some folks to wrap their minds around but there is no evidence of an existing voter fraud problem in Wisconsin. You seem to want there to be one. Why?
Why are you trying to expand the powers of government? I thought you, as I am, were in favor of limiting government power.
You know what else people have to do if asked? Provide ID for purchasing cigarettes and alcohol. Do you know why?
Democracy.
The world was not in the court's purview in this case. The state of Wisconsin was.
Then look no further than Chicago, Meade.
If you call a locksmith, he'll ask you for ID before he'll open up your house, garage, or business. Do you know why?
Because there might be a law, that if he doesn't follow the rules, he'll lose his license.
Meade: you seem to be knotting yourself into a pretzel to deny that voter fraud even exists.
OT, What did you think of Indiana's voter ID amendments and judicial resolution?
Chicago is in Illinois. If Illinois has a voter fraud problem, Illinoisans have the power to correct it.
I'll say it again: this case had to do with the state of Wisconsin.
The pretzel knotting is in your own head. I'll say it one more time: There was a trial. Evidence was presented. There was no evidence presented of voter fraud in Wisconsin. If you happen to have evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin, please present it to the 7th Circuit Court so this particular decision can be properly reversed.
Did garage mahal steal Meade's blogger ID?
"Did garage mahal steal Meade's blogger ID?"
Excellent example of a TRUE ad hominem attack. Well done, B.
TOP Toad sez ...
And in your vast awareness, Aridog, are the crime potentials for vote fraud about equivalent to scrap metal fraud? Or is the analogy a little weak? Is it the photo ID rule that safeguards us from the potential of the AllenSes of the world breaking bad in the scrap metal economy or is it the (rare) example of a scrap metal fraudster getting 2 1/2 years behind bars and having to pay restitution?
You still do not know what scrap metal fraud is, even after an example. What Allen does would not fall under that law because he is not promising delivery of something he doesn't have or can't deliver...e.g., "fraud."
In short, the penalty for fraud does not cover people who collect scrap and sell what they have on hand and present at the point of sale....because there is no "fraud" ...delivery is made by the seller at the same time payment is made by the buyer. Photo Identity is required, by law, to diminish larceny and protect the buyer from charges of receiving stolen property.
Quite frankly the potential for voter fraud is about the same as that for scrap metal larceny, easy to do, therefore that is why a Photo ID law for both is sound policy.
Your Judge Adelman has effectively ruled that no barn door need be closed until after the horses have left the barn.
"no barn door need be closed until after the horses have left the barn."
NOW you finally have come up with a decent analogy.
American democracy is about openness, freedom, equality, horses running free and full out unburdened by Farmer Airdog's control freak fears of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse, the homeless, the tempest-tossed.
Mr. Airdog, leave open this barn door!
TOP Toad ... I notice you didn't acknowledge the difference between fraud and larceny. Pathetic ole boy.
You did compare scrap collecting to fraud did you not, and suggest the penalty for fraud was a deterrent ...somehow to larceny as well. Sigh.
I expect you will tear up your driver's license, if you have one, and demand the police let you roam free with your vehicle and advise the bank you do not need to identify yourself, you are free man after all. Oh, and good luck with your theory at a Customs & Immigrations desk when returning to the USA, if you ever leave it.
Little snappy Chihuahua returns
in 5, 4, 3 ...
Meade wrote: NOW you finally have come up with a decent analogy.
Here's another analogy:
Had a vote been taken in 1492 among the indigenous voters of the western hemisphere whether the western expansion of Europe should precede, the vote would have assuredly been nay.
Meade, you are fond of being "ahead of your time," "on the right side of history," "not among the bigots," etc., -- are you certain of your moral rectitude, untainted with ambivalence for superceeding existing culture and mores?
Read the 90 page decision, guys. Here's a key passage:
""(V)irtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future."
As much as the next guy, I like making up humorous bad analogies and what-ifs-in-history. But in our system of law, today, in 2014, not 1492, laws have to be constitutional and courts have to consider evidence, not just stuff people are afraid of.
At this stage in process, the federal court has found the voter ID law unconstitutional because 1. it purports to remedy a problem that has no evidence of existing. 2. It has a disparate impact on a class of citizens, i.e., violates (constitutional) equal protection.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed. Meanwhile, you can choose to express either 1. your gladness that evidence of voter impersonation in Wisconsin does not exist and our elections are free, fair, and democratic or 2. your outrage that a class of citizens won't behave more like you want them to behave.
The first option reflects well on conservative and Republicans. I believe the second option does not. But it's a free country — choose for yourselves.
Post a Comment