‘This Is Not a Close Question’: Judge Blocks GOP’s Lame Duck Power Grab in Wisconsin, Restores Early Voting

[refugee 169]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/this-is-not-a-close-question-judge-blocks-gops-lame-duck-power-grab-in-wisconsin-restores-early-voting/

 

 

 

A federal court on Thursday blocked a major aspect of last year’s lame duck power grab by Republicans in Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson restored early voting and other rights relevant to the franchise which were previously curtailed by GOP state legislators and then-outgoing now-former governor Scott Walker in December 2018.

“This is not a close question,” Judge Peterson notes, “the…challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with” previous orders handed down by the court.

At issue are three provisions of Act 369. Those provisions: (1) limited the amount of time for early voting; (2) restricted the use of expired student identification cards for voting; and (3) placed a time limit on the use of temporary identification cards for voting. Three similar provisions were previously found to be unlawful and enjoined by an order of the same court in the summer of 2016.

[jg121783 3,907]

Looks like another Obama appointee legislating from the bench. As a resident of WI I wish the feds would stay out of state matters that don't concern them.

[Dashinka 23,248]

10 hours ago, refugee said:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/this-is-not-a-close-question-judge-blocks-gops-lame-duck-power-grab-in-wisconsin-restores-early-voting/

 

 

 

A federal court on Thursday blocked a major aspect of last year’s lame duck power grab by Republicans in Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson restored early voting and other rights relevant to the franchise which were previously curtailed by GOP state legislators and then-outgoing now-former governor Scott Walker in December 2018.

“This is not a close question,” Judge Peterson notes, “the…challenged provisions are clearly inconsistent with” previous orders handed down by the court.

At issue are three provisions of Act 369. Those provisions: (1) limited the amount of time for early voting; (2) restricted the use of expired student identification cards for voting; and (3) placed a time limit on the use of temporary identification cards for voting. Three similar provisions were previously found to be unlawful and enjoined by an order of the same court in the summer of 2016.

So a court uses its own precedent to make a second ruling?  And they say Trump is out of control.

[jg121783 3,907]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So a court uses its own precedent to make a second ruling?  And they say Trump is out of control.

I thought election laws were controlled by the states. At least that is what we were told when Trump tried to investigate election fraud in places like California. Can't have it both ways here. I guess you can if your a leftist activist judge.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Our judiciary needs an overhaul. When a federal judge ruled that Trump does not have the power to issue an executive order undoing a previous President executive order, we knew we were on the verge of being another totalitarian soviet union