Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls

[deleted-05292014 331]

suck on that scott walker

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/federal-judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-law-requiring-photo-id-at-polls.html?_r=0

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsin’s law requiring voters to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis — the Voting Rights Act— for similar challenges playing out around the nation.

Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the state’s 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizen’s right to vote based on race or color.

“I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination,” Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. “Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.”

In Wisconsin, the photo identification requirement approved by Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the State Legislature was already delayed following rulings in state court. But Judge Adelman’s finding citing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, more often a factor in cases related to redistricting, is certain to draw note from those involved in other voter identification challenges, including cases brought by the Department of Justice in North Carolina and Texas, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in election law.

Advocates of voter identification laws, who say that the provisions prevent potential fraud and promote public confidence in the voting process, have long looked to a 2008 United States Supreme Court decision on the matter in Indiana, where the law was upheld.

But opponents, who say the laws are really aimed at suppressing the turnout of Democrats, have been buoyed by a series of recent court rulings, including a state court finding in January striking down Pennsylvania’s law and another last week in Arkansas, which found the law there in violation of the state’s Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary stay to a portion of that ruling, and has called for the submission of legal briefs on the question by Friday.

In Wisconsin, the decision grew out of two lawsuits against officials brought on behalf of state residents, including older people, college students and members of minority groups. J. B. Van Hollen, the attorney general, said he planned to appeal. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Walker, said the governor’s office was reviewing the decision “for any potential action.”

Yet the order posed an immediate challenge for state Republican leaders who had earlier indicated they might soon call a special session to approve a revised law — one that could presumably pass court muster and go into effect before this year’s elections, which include the governor’s race.

Judge Adelman enjoined the state from requiring voters to provide identification cards, and required officials to seek legal approval of any revised law. The judge pledged to expedite hearings on any rewritten law, but wrote that “it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result.”

In an interview, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said the judge’s ruling had been politically motivated. “He used his personal bias to say that voter ID is just wrong,” Mr. Vos said of Judge Adelman, who was formerly a Democratic state lawmaker and who was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.

“Our intention was never to make it hard to vote,” Mr. Vos said of the voter identification law known as Act 23. “All we want to do is make sure we have some reasonable proof that people are who they say they are.”

But in his decision, Judge Adelman said, “There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from voting without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes.”

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jinx614

[mota bhai 2,675]

Voter ID should be required.

And the documents you need to get it and the document itself, should all be free. And there should be at least two election cycles between making it free for everyone and actually beginning to require it at the polling booth.

[Pooky 3,805]

Voter ID should be required.

And the documents you need to get it and the document itself, should all be free. And there should be at least two election cycles between making it free for everyone and actually beginning to require it at the polling booth.

Voter ID should be required.

Messing with voting times, reducing the number of voting stations, closing bathrooms, etc. is nonsense and should play no part in the voter ID issue.

One way of resolving the question of identification would be to place the burden on any state enacting a voter ID law to ensure that it's residents are provided with an acceptable form of ID. Then, if a person arrives at a voting station and cannot produce an ID, but can prove residency and that the state has not reached out to that person to provide an ID, they should still be allowed to cast their vote.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Constitution prevailed. Voter ID is an unconstitutional ruse.

[BatmanUSA 105]

Voter ID should be required.

And the documents you need to get it and the document itself, should all be free. And there should be at least two election cycles between making it free for everyone and actually beginning to require it at the polling booth.

agreed.!

[UncleBeer 244]

...and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.

The irony. Would these "benefits" also include welfare checks, which of course require photo ID in order to be cashed?

This provincial judge's ruling flies in the face of SCOTUS' 2008 Crawford decision, so will eventually be overturned:

In that case, the district judge had granted summary judgment against the challengers of the law because they had "not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements."

Bizarre that a judge would make such an obviously partisan ruling that will clearly not stand for long. But that's modern judicial activism for you; it's all about planting the flag in 'enemy territory'.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We have the technology and the infrastructure to switch to online voting which could be foolproof, but these voter ID movements aren't really about voting integrity, but about voter suppression. If voting integrity is really what people are most concerned about, we'd be looking at analysis and searching for the best, foolproof methods. Having an ID card would not be one of them. The Right Wingers know this, but they keep pushing the narrative that there are people out there trying to hijack our democracy and the only thing that will stop them is requiring they show a picture ID to a volunteer working the polls. Yes, lets turn a blind eye to money hijacking our democracy and instead pretend that we care enough about our democracy to require an outdated and imperfect security method. Absolute stupidity.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Porterhouse

[UncleBeer 244]

these voter ID movements aren't really about voting integrity, but about voter suppression.

SCOTUS disagrees.

If voting integrity is really what people are most concerned about, we'd be looking at analysis and searching for the best, foolproof methods.

And how exactly does one do this analysis without voter IDs? Illegal aliens (oh sorry: "undocumented immigrants") look exactly like US citizen voters. Or is that the entire intent of quashing voter ID laws? Hate to suppress illegals' "right to vote".

[mota bhai 2,675]

We have the technology and the infrastructure to switch to online voting which could be foolproof ...

foolproof online voting? i've got a bridge to sell you.

[UncleBeer 244]

foolproof online voting? i've got a bridge to sell you.

Yep. Plenty of examples just from the 2012 election. And why would anyone object to having a "paper trail" to backcheck voting irregularities? Because they rely on those irregularities.

[Teddy B 17,252]

This is such an overblown issue on both sides.

Voter fraud is a non-issue just as the fallacy that there are a large amount of people who will be unable to vote if id's are required.

“Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.”

Newsflash! Most people who don't have id's, or a bank account, or don't drive, or don't travel and don't participate in normal every day activities, also don't vote. For the very few who do, let the gov't provide them an id and get this foolishness over with.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yep. Plenty of examples just from the 2012 election.

You and I have different definitions of foolproof, then.

No system is foolproof. The best you can do is have multiple layers of measures intended to thwart abuse/fraud and hope the adversary is sufficiently deterred.

This is such an overblown issue on both sides.

Voter fraud is a non-issue just as the fallacy that there are a large amount of people who will be unable to vote if id's are required.

Newsflash! Most people who don't have id's, or a bank account, or don't drive, or don't travel and don't participate in normal every day activities, also don't vote. For the very few who do, let the gov't provide them an id and get this foolishness over with.

And a +1 to you, sir.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Voter fraud is a non-issue just as the fallacy that there are a large amount of people who will be unable to vote if id's are required.

+1.

If it ain't broken..

Edited April 30, 2014 by Gegel

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Woo! Down with voter ID!

I don't think the gov should give free IDs to everyone, how expensive it would be! For what?

Down with a national ID; quit trying to make me a serial number!

This whole thing is a smokescreen. The people who cry "voter fraud" don't even understand what it is, and use bullsh!t data to come up with spurious conclusions. Like, how many dead people are on voter lists. Voter lists aren't updated in real time, so if someone dies, they are still on the list. It doesn't mean that that person is voting! They never question who voted, just who is on a list.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[UncleBeer 244]

Voter fraud is a non-issue

<sigh> Be sure not to read the post or links right before yours, as they'd disprove what you wrote.

You and I have different definitions of foolproof, then.

No system is foolproof. The best you can do is have multiple layers of measures intended to thwart abuse/fraud and hope the adversary is sufficiently deterred.

Heh? Did you read any of those links? They said that votes cast for Romney on electronic screens sometimes registered as votes for Obama. How's that 'foolproof'?

If it ain't broken..

Avert your eyes to proof to the contrary. Ostrich.