Skip to comments.[WI] Judge rules voter ID law unconstitutional [makes temp injunction permanent]
Posted on 03/12/2012 12:39:19 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
Madison - A Dane County judge permanently enjoined the state's new voter ID law on Monday - the second judge in a week to block the requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls.
"A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence - the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote - imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people," said the eight-page opinion by Dane County Judge Richard Niess. "It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution. This is precisely what 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 does with its photo ID mandates."
Niess' ruling goes further than the one issued by another judge last week because it permanently halts the law. Tuesday's order by Dane County Judge David Flanagan blocked the law for the April 3 presidential primary and local elections, but not beyond that.
The latest order may make it harder for the state to put the voter ID law into effect before the April 3 election because it would have to win two appeals in less than four weeks. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has asked for a stay of the earlier order, and he is expected to appeal it this week.
Kevin Kennedy, director of the state Government Accountability Board, said his election agency is telling local clerks to keep training to implement the law so they're prepared to do so if it's suddenly restored.
"We'll just live with what is there," Kennedy said.
Whether Wisconsin's photo ID law will stand is widely considered to be decided by a higher court - a point the judge in the case made from the bench during a hearing Friday. There are four lawsuits pending against it - two in Dane County court and two...
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
AG Van Hollen has said he'll appeal.
The best appeal is a bucket of hot tar, a sack of feathers and a pole.
I’m really concerned about the Federal government’s overreach.
California voters pass an initiative to enshrine marriage as between a man and woman, the 9th Circus considers it unconstitutional.
Texas legislators pass a law to make it mandatory to produce identification before you can vote. The courts, again, intercede and call is unconstitutional.
Now Michigan voters are disenfranchised by a judiciary Hell bent on a political agenda under the guise of constitutionality.
At what point did it become unconstitutional to validate the verity of a person’s claim to vote? At what point did it become unconstitutional to ensure that a voter is, in fact, a member of the American electorate and not some foreign usurper stuffing a ballot box?
Obama must be arrested and jailed for the rest of his life for a list of crimes against Americans that I cannot possible begin to enumerate here, and his corrupt, sycophant AG needs to go with him to the clink. They can share a mattress and dream of better days when free love meant more than dropping the soap when Bubba was on the prowl.
Correction/clarification: This is a different case from the one in which a temporary injunction was issued last week. In that one, the principal plaintiff was the NAALCP; in this one, it’s the League of Leftist Women Voters.
Just spoke with a friend over there, who told me about this.
My goodness, they really need to close their borders. lol Those hispanics swimming over there now? another rofl.
America has gone 99% NUTS.
I’ve not been a big supporter of document production at polling stations, but where the majority or their representatives have spoken, I don’t see what constitutional grounds you object to it on.
States provide an I.D. that works like a driver’s license but doesn’t provide permission to drive. Nobody is being denied the right to have a valid I. D., so where’s the beef.
I suppose someone could say they refuse to get an I. D., but then how do you tell them from an illegal alien?
One solution would be to get the illegal aliens out of our nation, but we haven’t had any success with that.
Can restrictions be placed on that right?
“One solution would be to get the illegal aliens out of our nation, but we havent had any success with that.”
At best that’s only a partial solution anyway. There would still be people voting at multiple precincts, people voting where they don’t reside (especially students), and voting felons.
Well then I guess this means it is “unconstitutional” for me to have to present an ID to exercise my right to buy, own or carry a gun.
How can you have the rule that one right is constitutional to infringe on by requiring an ID while another right it is “unconstitutional” to require an ID?
Saying that requiring an ID to vote is unconstitutional means that all rights are protected from such things. SO this means that any right is free from producing an ID to exercise.
Or am I missing something here?
Maybe tourists can vote now. Come to America, cast a ballot!
I guess liberals think that only rich, white people should have a right to defend themselves.
I think that we have already established that the courts have ceased to function in Dane county.
Based on that broad an "interpretation" (well, a better word for it would be "invention"), there is no way that a dastardly and heinous act such as requiring people to register before voting can possibly be permissible under the Constitution. Obviously, requiring voter registration is a hurdle that would have a disparate impact on minorities, which would undermine the very foundation of the government's legitimacy. On the other hand, enabling vote fraud is entirely in keeping with the highest principles of our cherished Democratic institutions, and must therefore be enshrined into law.
What of "the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to [have their] vote [s] " honestly counted? Does not counting illegal votes imperil the legitimacy of government "by the people" instead of by ballot stuffers?
Why is one form of disenfranchisement less worthy of protection than the other?
Libs will never give in on this - it’s all they have left.
Can we just dip our finger into a jar of sterile, non-allergenic purple dye after we vote — whose right would that violate?
re: “”A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence - the people’s inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote - imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people,” said the eight-page opinion by Dane County Judge Richard Niess. “It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution. This is precisely what 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 does with its photo ID mandates.”
No, he’s got it completely backward - it’s his act of stopping this law going into effect that “imperils it’s legitimacy”. Asking for proof of ID is not “sowing the seeds of it’s own demise” - it’s actually legitimizing elections. What absolute insanity!!
Just ignore him. They should tell the judge to try and enforce it.
If people have an absolute right to vote without any regulations imposed upon that right then I write we have the right to vote as often as we want and without restriction. I should not have to register at all. Just tell the poll workers I am over 18.
“pre-constitutional right to vote”
That’s a new term to me.
“Pre-Constitution” would mean the period of time in which the colonies were ruled by a monarchy. There was no such right to vote; furthermore, it was restrictions on voting and representation that led to the revolution.
The judge is an idiot.
Can we just dip our finger into a jar of sterile, non-allergenic purple dye after we vote whose right would that violate?
You are exactly right, it does not violate anyone’s right.
It is simple and it makes sense. What if you went a step further and had each voter dip their finger in indelible purple ink and then put their fingerprint on their ballot. Would that infringe on any rights? Just thinking of some way to eliminate the rampant fraud.
Thanks Hunton Peck.
Some people have absolutely no shame.
Just another liberal activist judge in Madison. The city is full of them. Like rats. Hard to get rid of them.
How do they guarantee our laws are being enforced if no-one is allowed to question who is voting? They don’t have a right to tie a specific ballot to an individual person, but there is absolutely no civil rights abuse in verifying a person is who they say they are! The state has bent over backwards to help people who want to vote to get their FREE IDs (which they are req’d by law to have anyway).
How do they get a job, or transact business without SOME form of ID - heck, where I used to work the illegal immigrants sending money through our Western Union service every week even had ID (”Mexican Consulate Cards” if not a DL in some states), and they are trying to say it’s a burden for an American Citizen to get a genuine ID?
BS, an ID is so easy to get with even a minimal amount of paperwork that it’s almost pathetic. (Granted they run your name through a computer system that WILL bring up your legal records when you get one, so some people might not be able to get one for fear of being arrested... that’s probably a problem for a great majority of Democrats *snicker*).
The State will provide a FREE ID if you go to the DMV and ask for one. Why haven't any of the groups bringing up the lawsuits organized any effort to help the alleged 220,000 that can't get an ID, GET AN ID ??? Wouldn't that be more helpful?
Another judge that should be demoted to working at subway.
You think they would want to be “helpful” in any way that would hurt their illegal alien and dead friends?
That surely doesn't mean any impostor that can schlep in to a voting booth, does it?
All the Voter I.D. is to make certain that the voter is a U.S. Citizen and has the right to vote.
The Constitution did say “Citizens”. And we are trying to make certain. !
So what’s wrong with that?
Yes - you aren’t an irrational leftist mental case.
WTH is going on in this country?
That's not coincidental at all.
There is no ID requirement in New Hampshire.
I am determined to vote 3 times in this presidential and gubernatorial election, principles and Constitution be damned. I can go from one polling station to the next and say I’m a different coworker each time. I know where my coworkers live.
Send this post to every leftist you like.
Think of the demographic of people who:
1. Don’t have an ID to show.
2. Have one, but are so fearful of showing it that they won’t vote if they have to show one.
You cannot apply for welfare without an id. The basis for concern is absurd. This is politicking from the bench.
Now there’s a judge begging for an opportunity to explain to his employer’s, We the People, just how and where he gets off participating in disenfranchising them of their vote!!
BTW...here’s how the adults north and south of us handle this issue..
Heres How Canada Verifies...
.heres how they deal with voter fraud issues south of the border....and ..its all you need to know about the treasonous, malignant American Left....
...the Mexican Voter I.D. card has NINE security characteristics, including a fingerprint, a photograph, watermarks and holograms. What is more, in Mexico, the lists of electors that are distributed to political parties include the photo and the full name and address of the electors.
and if WE dont start doing so..there is very little incentive to continue to voluntarily support the Feds every April 15th.
The Communists aren’t going down without a fight.
This ruling will add significance to the bill moving through the Minnesota legislature right now. It will amend the state constitution to require voter ID, and is favored by over 80% of the polled voters.
Can Holder believe he’s going to overrule a state’s constitution? The line must be drawn soon.
From the article:
“Flanagan determined Wisconsin’s voter ID law was the most restrictive in the country based on testimony from Ken Mayer, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor. Mayer has estimated there are more than 220,000 Wisconsin residents who do not have photo IDs but who are otherwise qualified to vote.”
Wisconsin has 3,493,711 registered voters. 6.3% of those voters are registered, but don’t have IDs.
Proof of Residence
The following constitute acceptable Proof-of-Residence if the document contains your current name and address and is valid on Election Day (unless otherwise indicated):
A current and valid Wisconsin driver license.
A current and valid Wisconsin identification card.
Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit.
Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
A residential lease which is effective for a period that includes election day (NOT for first-time voters registering by mail).
A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo), ONLY if the bearer provides a fee receipt dated within the last nine months or the institution provides a certified housing list to the municipal clerk.
A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing not earlier than 90 days before election day.
A check or other document issued by a unit of government.
One (imperfect) test would be to converse with them in English for a few seconds. If they have trouble with routine language, or if they can't speak English intelligibly, then they should be flagged for further scrutiny. Ah, but that would be "profiling," wouldn't it?
Yes, illegal aliens aren't allowed by law to vote anywhere in the United States, but the same applies to legal aliens. One must be, at the minimum, a citizen of the United States to vote, even though such a requirement might be viewed as potentially damaging to the 'Rats' electoral chances. So pro-'Rat judges like this guy in Wisconsin are effectively weakening a wise law for purely political purposes. That's legislating from the bench.
This just happened to Texas’ new law, too. By the Marxist Obamanation administration, though.
And yes, our AG is taking it to court as well.
Absolute garbage. There is nothing stopping anyone citizen from getting a photo ID, so requiring one does nothing to stop anyone from voting.
This is clearly about enabling voter fraud, which is a demographic that always favors the Democrats, but everyone here knew that anyway.
Here's a question for all of you legal experts out there. Is there any way the governor and legislators can bypass this ruling and proceed with requiring photo IDs to vote?
Where is the “right” to vote found?
I’ve got it. If a child is born in this country and at least one of the parents has a valid picture ID, the child is given a photo ID. Problem solved. Wonder if I can get a job with the Feds?
“Where is the right to vote found?”
The same place as the “right to privacy”.