Skip to comments.ACLU files federal lawsuit over Wisconsin's voter ID law
Posted on 12/13/2011 2:13:06 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday, claiming Wisconsin's new voter identification law imposes a severe burden on the right to vote - the second lawsuit filed in the last two months.
In the lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Milwaukee, the ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin and National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees.
"This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures," said ACLU attorney Jon Sherman in a statement. "Across the nation, legislators are robbing countless American citizens of their fundamental right to vote, and in the process, undermining the very legitimacy of our democracy. We intend to redirect their attention to the United States Constitution."
According to the lawsuit, requiring only certain types of government-issued photo ID imposes a severe burden on voting rights and effectively imposes an unconstitutional poll tax.
Among the defendants named are Gov. Scott Walker and members of the Government Accountability Board, which oversees state elections, and the Department of Transportation, which oversees the Division of Motor Vehicles that issues state IDs.
In an email statement, Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the law is constitutional and other states laws with photo ID requirements have been upheld by federal courts.
"Requiring photo identification to vote helps ensure the integrity of our elections - we already require it to get a library card, cold medicine, and public assistance," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I fixed that first sentence.
I had to show my ID when I voted on a school issue last month. The even ran it through a strip reader.
I was horrified and felt dirty. /s
The curious thing is that there isn’t a pharmacy in America that will fill a prescription without some type of ID. So we are saying that you don’t need an ID to vote but you need one for drug purchases...which is kinda sad if you think about it.
Yeah, it makes stealing an election virtually impossible.
I personally think the aclu/s should be declared unconstitutional AND the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty unconstitutional also. If someone does not own property and does not pay taxes they shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
When the Libs say “right to vote” they mean the “right to cheat”. But we already knew this.
“...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.
So do I, however who in CONgress would ever be that bold to take on the commies? None or none in the future.
Agree. Unfortunately, it is too late. Those with a negative stake in the system will bring the rest down. A strongman will emerge to establish order from anarchy.
ACLU can sue all they want. Voter ID laws have been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS.
You can’t write a check at the grocery or pharmacy or anywhere for that matter without an ID. Yet, you can vote for the most powerful man on earth (or so far) without an ID. ACLU needs to be dismantled and sent to Russia.
Well, lets do away with driver’s license, library cards, gun permits, hunting license, tax I.D.s, birth certificates (whoops, some have), voter registration period or anything else you can think of the requires identification....actually we should go back to only letting those who are property owners vote...the working and responsible people....why let anyone who can’t read English vote in the first place or anyone who doesn’t pay taxes....who the heck does the ACLU think pays their wages, in part the United States Government does. A Bronx Cheer THLPPpppppppppppppppp to the ACLU!
The ACLU’s problem (OK, one of their many problems) is that Wisconsin is in the same judicial circuit as Indiana and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already held Indiana’s voter ID law to be valid. In the Indiana case, Judge Posner pointed out that the lawyers arguing the case had to show photo ID’s to get into the court house.
I have been asked for ID when using a credit card at places like LOWES....and others....sheesh...we KNOW exactly WHAT is going on here.
Did the ACLU have to show an ID to file the lawsuit?
Yet no one asks the ACLU the simple question, “Why does voter ID laws disenfranchise the voter?”
Day before this story, I was in the liqour line checking out at a major grocery store chain. I use it because they are a 15 item and under checkout lane and hardly anyone else knows about it.
Black lady in front of me buying a lot of alcohol. Happy person, had NO problem giving the ID to the clerk despite obviously being more than 21 years old.
There is no burden. There is absolutely no extra burden for different races. None. The fact more of a certain group are too lazy to get either a govt ID or drivers’ license does not mean there’s any extra burden on them sipmply for belonging to a certain race of people. If anything it would indicate as a group they are less concerned with getting an ID than other groups of people are.
Nope, they are apoplectic they can’t vote the same way they are doing on the voter recall forms anymore (ie multiple times).
We should adopt Mexico’s voting laws and immigration laws. They have good food too. I am trying to think of a fourth thing to praise Mexico for..... I’ve got it. Salma Hayek!
Does this also mean that cops disenfranchise certain criminals when they ask them to produce ID?
Does it mean the liquor laws disenfranchise customers because the law requires stores to have customers show ID they are old enough to purchase alcohol legally? (Same with cigarettes).
Does it mean the power and gas companies disenfranchise certain customers because you can’t get services unless you show a govt ID?
Does it mean banks and loan companies disenfranchise certain customers because they won’t give out loans to you without a government ID? I can’t even make deposits at certain bank branches without showing my ID.
The answer to all of the questions is “Hell No.”
You also have to have a photo ID to pick up Toys for Tots, to ensure that the parents of actual kids are picking up the toys.
That should knock the Anti Christian Litigation Unit's (ACLU) argument right out of the park.
Game, set, match!
PS: How do all these "poor" people cash a check, open a bank account, buy adult beverages (oops my bad, lol) pick up prescriptions, apply for benefits, and many, many, other services that ALL require photo ID's???
PPS: Guess NONE of these "disadvantaged" drive???
I’m amazed such a lawsuit can be filed. The court should bounce it and fine the ACLU for filing a frivolous suit.
LEGA voters have NO PROBLEM with requiring IN PERSON VOTERS TO SHOW POSITIVE PHOTO ID.
There's so much illegal ballot-stuffing from mail-in votes that Dem's vote in numbers greater than Registered Democrat Voter numbers, in some locales.
Why can't the USSC rule that States have a Right to set their own Rules for Voter Registration and Identification?
Using the tired "disenfrancihises minorities and poor people" is B.S.
If they can manage to get their Benefits (welfare, food stamps, etc.), and DRIVERS LICENSES FOR ILLEGALS, how is it disenfranchisement to require IDENTIFICATION to Vote?
That's EXACTLY who votes Democrat, straight-across. If it's self-serving (i.e., to sustain their parasitic existence), they VOTE FOR IT.
So the ACLU is capitalistic after all.....
You must show an ID to do the following:
Open a bank account-—ID MUST include your ORIGINAL birth certificate.
Get utilities in your name- power, water, etc.
Rent ANYTHING—a house-— apartment- a large tool at United Rentals—a rental car or minivan.
Cash a check.
Get a renewal of your driver’s license or get a new driver’s license in another state. Also requires your original birth certificate.
Get auto insurance for your vehicles.
Buy a ticket on an airline & fly. You get to produce your ID over and over again until you are seated in your place on the airplane.
Proper ID is also needed for your kid to get into school-—join a sports team—etc.
Requiring a proper photo ID to vote should be applauded by every voter.
The ACLU can pound sand, IMO.
Yep. It causes the illegals not to vote and the deceased too.
Perhaps the Court will rule that they have “no standing.”
I'm not sure making things difficult for meth lab entrepreneurs qualifies as nanny statism.
They, of course, will need to be prepared to provide a picture ID to get into the court house.
Bill Gates votes Democrat. He owns everything that can be owned.
The VAST MAJORITY of the Dem's base are Unionistas, Felons, Parasites, Minorities, and white-guilt loons, with a smattering of Enviro-wacko's and non-productive Students.
Those who work for a living, or pay their own way, and/or want the U.S. Constitution re-instated, don't vote Democrat.
So, what is it you are trying to say?
So, what is it you are trying to say?"
Oh, that's SPECIAL!
Where do ALL the Union donations to the DNC come from?
HINT: "Republican" voters that are in Unions?
Those are NOT voluntary “donations”. You assume the unions make those donations out of their own funds too. A number of them simply launder money for criminals and foreign nationals.
That is just crazy talk.
If you haven't noticed union membership is down to almost nothing in Right To Work states so that means that people who work for a living and live in a "Non-Right To Work" state are union members through no fault of their own.
How about this, Catholics vote for Democrats ~ and, in the Obama election, a majority of Catholics voted for Obama. An overwhelming majority of Jews voted for Democrats, and for Obama, and even the Moslems voted in overwhelming numbers for Democrats and Obama.
Do Catholics, Jews and Moslems work for a living? Or are they simply easily misled?
It's really difficult to imagine that all the Catholics, Jews and Moslems in this country are on welfare sucking down the goodies big time. They may be and I don't know about it, but can you provide some numbers here?
The atheist Democrat lawyers at the ACLU usually pull this kind of dirty trick closer to an election so they can get a friendly liberal scumbag judge to issue an “injunction”. I wonder why they pulled the trigger on this now? End-of-the-year fund drive, maybe?
I'm saving this gem to show those agitating against voter ID and ask them to explain. I expect the hypocrisy to reach new levels.
Obama won in 2008 with the votes of those who live off the government+white guilt voters+those who are here illegally, and not U.S. Citizens.
If a Catholic Union Member voted for Obama, it was because the Unions are the money-laundering AND the recipients of Taxpayer-funded support.
Medicaid: The largest of all safety net programs, Medicaid enrollment for the first time ever topped 50 million in June 2010, the most recent figures available. That's up from 42.3 million in June 2007.
How do you think the bulk of them will vote?
Food stamps: The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, hit a record 44.2 million in January. That's up 4.7 million from the prior year.
Unemployment insurance: More than 8.4 million people are collecting either state or federal jobless benefits.
How does being unemployed trigger people to vote for Democrats?
And, back to the Catholic issue, why did Catholics give a majority of their votes to Obama and the Democrats in 2008? Were they all unemployed, on welfare, or did they belong to unions?
Unemployed, Catholic, Union-members voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
P.S. Unemployment EXTENSIONS come out of the Taxpayers pocket, indirectly, when "bailouts" to fund the States who are insolvent are happening everywhere. (No; the Fed doesn't pay, the Employer does, but when the Employer is THE STATE, COUNTY, LOCAL, of Federal Government, who do you think pays the "un-Employment"?????)
Fur Shur there aren't nearly enough ~ should be half the teachers in the country standing their on their thumbs or something but they're not.
But, let's go back to your belief that only unemployed, Catholic union members voted for Obama.
Think about that a second ~ why were Catholic union members "unemployed"? Do unemployed people pay union dues religiously?
What you're doing is you are working in broad categories that you think are relevant to the question of who wins elections.
Fact is in a society organized such that it's political dimensions follow a mathematical shape known as a Bimodal Saddle, you just don't get nice, neat, micro categorization.
What you get are two core groups ~ one we call Republican and the other we call Democrat. There's a thin fringe around each.
The objective in any election is to PULL IN your own base or core voters, AND attract one of the factions that make up the other party to vote for you.
The two poles are, at this time in history, organized differently. The Democrats are composed of a number of special interest groups. The Republicans are composed of a number of occupational categories as well as religious traditionalists.
Neither pole pulls in everyone. You have half the union guys voting for Republicans and half for Democrats, yet their union affiliate is always part of the Democrat Party governing council!
The objective for the Republicans in any election is to try to pull off a few more union votes from the Democrat column while NOT alienating the far larger numbers of union members who almost always give Republicans their votes.
The objective for the Democrats is to pull in their own "we can count on these guys" union member votes (half the total) while also pulling in a few more union members who usually vote for Republicans ~ but the Democrats don't do that without risk. They've already alienated half the union members with their BS and betrayals so they don't want to alienate more of them.
Consequently you don't see Republicans running around saying union members are scum, nor do you see Democrats running around saying that union members who vote for Republicans are betraying their class, or are scabs.
Just doesn't happen ~ yet, I gather from the way you want to categorize folks, you think you can get more votes from the other side's factions by calling them names and belittling them.
That doesn't win elections.
I'd go into this in a bit more depth but it's getting late. Fur Shur the Republican Establishment's wealthier blue-hairs imagine that we win votes by beating up on voters, but fortunately they only control the RNC. That's balanced by the true-believing Leftwingtards in the Democrat party. They think they get more votes by conducting a burn-all-bridges class warfare.