Skip to comments.Wisconsin voter ID ruling creates confusion
Posted on 08/02/2014 7:38:37 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
MADISON, Wis. -- A court-ordered change to Wisconsin's photo identification law that's designed to cut down on voter fraud is creating confusion and may even open the door to the very type of behavior Republican lawmakers were trying to prevent.
Policy makers, attorneys and voter ID experts were struggling Friday with how to interpret a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling from a day earlier, which mandated a change to the law in order to make it constitutional.
The court said the state can't require applicants for state-issued IDs to present government documents that cost money to obtain, such as a copy of a birth certificate. The court left it to the Division of Motor Vehicles to come up with a solution.
"We don't know how that's going to work," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Thursday shortly after the ruling. When asked whether obtaining photo IDs without having to present government-issued documents verifying a person's identity could result in fraud, Vos said: "It's got a potential for it."
The requirement, passed in 2011, is not currently in effect. A state judge blocked it in March 2012 and in May a federal judge struck it down as violating the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. While the state Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, a federal appeals court would have to reverse U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman's ruling for the requirement to take effect.
Thirty-four states have passed laws requiring some sort of identification from voters, but only 31 of them are in effect, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
The laughs never end. So you need an ID to vote, but no official ID is necessary to get an ID. Brilliant.
Similar situation in Kansas. The law is clear: have a legal ID. The press is the problem, as it’s trying to make this simple requirement out to be one of the most confusing things in the history of mankind.
Maybe the ‘reporters’ really are this stupid but it sure looks like a panic play to me.
What does county hall charge for a birth certificate? $15.00? Why not give everybody one free one a year? (or every two years?), Would it really bust the budget? Hell of a lot cheaper than voter fraud.
Not everyone domiciled in WI was born in WI. Stupid ruling.
How about allowing IDs to be purchased with EBT cards? I’m sure that the poor could trade a few bags of Doritos for the right to vote.
The right to bear arms is a basic constitutional right too. While I have no personal experience with it, I understand obtaining a pistol permit in some states is a difficult, time consuming and expensive process. I guess some rights are more important than other rights.
From what I have seen, I wouldn't bet about that.
Good point. There is a fee to get these documents, but the fee does not break the bank.
There is a fee to renew our driver’s licenses. I think it is about $30 to renew for a five year period in California. Other states have fees too, but these fees also do not break the bank.
Not sure why the issue of paying a nominal fee for a government service is at issue here. Unless liberals are looking to grasp anything to push against voter ID.
I researched and found a form on line that homeschoolers could use instead of a school id. The form basically asked for the "school administrator" (me) to sign saying my son was in homeschool. So even though I had legal documents to prove who he was, the DMV needed me to sign a piece of paper as the proof. Isn't that ridiculous?
I was thinking the same thing. 1 free should be sufficient.
When you pay a visit to the bureaucracy, you don’t have to characterize it as ridiculous. It is understood going in.
This small exchange is from another site I visited a few minutes ago:
Theyre going to tell Hispanics, Hey theyre going to send you back, and all that stuff. They will just use this as propaganda...”
Those who are to be sent back will not be voting anyway. Oh, wait- that’s why the RAT party so strongly opposes voter ID laws. Is it 1776 yet?
Off topic, but case in point, New Jersey. To obtain a carry permit you have to "prove a need"; unless you are "connected" the proof is never sufficient. Any permit/registration requirement is a clear violation of the Second Amendment anyway. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they fail to get?
They know that, outside of a few big cities and a couple of radical states, they'd never win another election. Of course they oppose it.
Well, inner city blacks use pistols without those stinkin’ permits, so why shouldn’t they vote without stinkin’ IDs? /s
Good point! Actually our DMV just “moved and improved” - a greeter directs you and you use a computer to determine what you need, then get a ticket with a number on it so you can sit instead of moving in a line like cattle. It has really helped the wait time because some things are quicker to obtain and you don’t get in line behind some moron who doesn’t understand what they are being told.
Minority voting was up in the first Texas election that required ID to vote, so the Supreme Court of MN is uninformed as to the effect of the ID laws in other states.
Of course, it will cut down on the sizable bloc of dead people voting, and that is what Democrats fear.
we have a lot of online services renewals etc.
You can also make appointments. In Oceanside, CA the illegals line up every morning, but an appointment can get you in and out quickly.
We are RE brokers and the Bureau of RE is the worst state agency to deal with and it’s all paid for by our fees.