Posted on 05/30/2013 10:07:04 AM PDT by Sopater
Edited on 05/30/2013 10:14:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A Wisconsin appeals court says a law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls is constitutional.
Republicans passed a law in 2011 requiring voters to show photo identification, saying the mandate would help fight election fraud. The League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court in October 2011 challenging the law. Judge Richard Niess ruled the law was unconstitutional in March 2012, saying it would abridge the right to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wqow.com ...
YESS!!!
D*mn right it is.
And we don’t need no stinkin’ judge to tell this to us.
What next? Does this lift the injunction for the next election?
What do you think would happen if I refused to show my ID at the TSA window, and start screaming about how I'm being discriminated against and denied my right to free travel?
In my bad-news stupor, I originally read this headline as “unconstitutional.” Tragically, I’m being trained to see bad news. Thank God I was mistaken!
If you have a passport, it would probably be confiscated and you'd be told whether or not it would return to you was "under consideration......by the State Department!"
i did the same thing
The WI legislature also is proposing a few “tweaks” to the law to clean up a couple of small issues in the next few weeks which should help even more.
Charlie Sykes had a local law guy on this morning that after the interview was over has Sykes feeling even better about the ruling.
It should be in effect next year.
Had this law been in effect in November, I guarantee you that Thompson would be the senator and the state’s electors would have likely been for Romney.
Agreed — however, as we have seen, much more damage can be done to this country via the ballot box, than could ever be done with a single airplance.
I have absolutely no idea what an “airplance” is. Maybe I meant “airplane”.
YAY Y’all!
Would you possibly also forfeit your 2nd Ammendment rights?
I hate when I.D. law proponents make even small concessions on their original bill because it makes it appear that even they had some reservations about the effects. They should stand strong on every point. Otherwise, the liberal opposition jumps on these waffles to capitalize on them.
The "exempting poor people" concession is a joke. Who PAYS to vote? NO ONE!!!!!
On of the tweaks in this case specifically answers one of the lawsuits claims that they had no birth certificate due to being born in the south ages ago and therefore can’t get an ID.
Bullshit yes, but what the legislature is doing is allowing for that person to vote while signing an affidavit stating their vote is a lawful one. In any recount these would then be the first votes to be then challenged.
Suddenly there is a paper trail.
This is true. It does abridge the right of libtard constituencies to vote multiple times, to vote in the names of dead people and to vote in place of people who moved away, didn't show up to vote, etc.
Now that the courts have ruled sham elections to be the law of the land, I should have the right to pay my taxes with sham money from my Monopoly set. Change for a $500 gold note, please!
Thank you for referencing that article Sopater. Please bear in mind that my critique about the article below is not being directed at you.
The referenced article is another good example of articles that address Constitution-related issues in a way that are at least inadvertently targeted to low information voters. More specifically. not only is there no clarification of what constitutonal clause(s) that the League of Women voters and Judge Richard Niess claimed that the law violated, but neither do we hear from the Wisconsin Supreme Court why they found the law constitutonal.
Note that states can prohibit otherwise eligible people from voting on the basis of anything not expressly protected by the Constitution. And the Constitution prohibits the states from not allowing people to vote on the bases of race, sex, tax owed and age as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively.
In other words, since no amendment or clause in the Constitution says that the states cannot prohibit people from voting if they can’t show a photo ID, then the states are free to prohibit people from voting on that basis.
But the states have to administer photo ID voting laws in a way that such laws don’t discriminate against poor people. This is because, although such laws are still constitutional imo, bleeding heart activist judges can probably get away with declaring such laws unconstitutional.
Naah, it just forces them to buy more fake ID cards.
South Carolina GOP Rep. Eviscerates Claims That Voter ID Laws Are Racist During Hearing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3009140/posts
Me too, at first.
The Supreme Court of the United States ALREADY ruled Voter ID CONSTITUTIONAL in April of 2008. That didn’t stop Eric Holder from suing every state that tried to implement it before the 2012 election. He should’ve been prosecuted for that, and that alone.
Is the Photo ID that is required under Obamacare also ‘racist’???
The league’s attorney, Lester Pines, had no immediate comment.
Another Dane County judge’s decision blocking the requirement in a separate lawsuit still stands. Two federal lawsuits challenging the requirement are pending as well.
I don't recall this discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment at all.
I do not ever forfeit my right to self-defense but will recognize the airlines' conditional rule of requiring my photo ID to board their airplane and thoroughly endorse requiring a photo ID to vote as voter fraud is greater than believed to be.
Importannt decision on Voter Photo ID, although it doesn’t change anything yet.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list. Sorry to be late with the ping, but I was away from my computer all morning.
No, this does not lift the injunction. This pertains just to the League of Women Voters lawsuit, although it is a welcome decision. There is another injunction in place. Unfortunately, I heard J.B. Vanhollen talking on the radio this AM that the libs can continue to file injunctios. The Legislature has something else in the works.
ACORN paid people to vote. It's a long standing Democratic Mafia tradition.
No it includes both black and white and colored pictures.
Correct. People (demonicrats) are paid TO vote.
I vote in every election. Where’s MY check!!!!
I see you have not been voting Democrat. That is a problem.
Same here. Sad ain't it?
LOL! I’ve posted WI articles thinking they were positive, then they turned out to be negative!
You’re right - since our media is so b@stardized, it’s hard to keep things straight. Good is Bad. Right is Wrong. Up is Down.
All By design, Comrade. ;)
Happy, Happy! Slow and steady wins the race. :)
w00t! FReep this poll (look for it on the right) and slam it outta the park!
Do you think people should be required to show a photo ID to vote?
Yes No
How do poor people obtain state welfare without an identity? I can't figure this out. If they have the documentation to satisfy the state that they are who they are for welfare purposes, surely they have what is necessary to vote, or get an I.D. to vote. The fees for these are extremely nominal.
Doesn’t matter what’s “right” you should get it by now.. it only matters what the judges think.
I flew in one of those to Chicago O’Hare once. Almost got hit on the tarmac by a catering truck . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
