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 ...
A judiciary that imposes its will to guarantee that democrats can continue to cheat at the polls is a far greater threat. Accepting the notion that voting is "pre-constitutional", aren't dishonest elections even worse than voter ID requirements? Many people will be fooled by the high tone of the judge's argument, but the "logic" collapses at the first whiff of examination.
Excellent point. It actually just shows how incredibly shallow the reasoning of this ruling is.
Excellent point. It actually shows just how incredibly shallow the reasoning of this ruling is.
The county judges who’ve made these rulings don’t care about the Constitution. It has become obvious that their only concern is to enable fraud for as long as it takes their Marxist masters to steal this year’s elections. After that, they’ll think of something else, if the Constitution hasn’t been overtly discarded by then.
If voter ID is unconstitutional, how is it that other states are using it? We’ve had ID in VA since the late 90s.
The judge’s reasoning is so pathetically shallow because its the best he can do. The left knows that the only way they can keep getting craven bastards on the bench is through voter fraud. So the ruling reflects this desperation.
Someone on another thread posted the Mexican voter ID card which includes a photo and, IIRC, a thumbprint. Even Mexico, a bastion of integrity in politics, understands that voter ID makes perfect sense, unless you’re trying to steal elections.
ooops! that should be “Even Mexico, NOT a bastion of integrity...
I love those! And that’s about my favorite show too.
You could be right, but I’m not convinced it’s all that easy to vote in multiple precincts. Explain how that works and I might be more agreeable. To be honest, this has been a concern of mine in the past, but I’m not sure how realistic it is. Convince me.
“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?”
I see you look to be from Georgia.
Refresh my memory — wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that this issue came before the United States Supreme Court in Georgia? And did not the Court rule in favor of GA, that is, that the state could require voters to produce I.D. at the polls?
If it is “Constitutional” to require voter I.D. down there, why would be unConstitutional to prohibit the display of same elsewhere?
Or am I missing something?
Seems like it would to me, but then that would have to be a more important goal than having unqualified people voting. There’s where that idea breaks down for the Left.
After Indiana enacted an election law (SEA 483) requiring citizens voting in person to present government-issued photo identification, petitioners filed separate suits challenging the law’s constitutionality. Following discovery, the District Court granted respondents summary judgment, finding the evidence in the record insufficient to support a facial attack on the statute’s validity. In affirming, the Seventh Circuit declined to judge the law by the strict standard set for poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, finding the burden on voters offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud. Held: The judgment is affirmed.
I’m not familiar with Wisconsin law, but how can a “County” judge trump State law?
Replying to my own post....
Ah, I see my error. It was the GEORGIA Supreme Court (not the U.S. Supreme Court) that upheld the state’s voter I.D. law.
See:
http://law.ga.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,87670814_167294941_168848327,00.html
Well, this issue is destined to end up the U.S. Supreme Court before too long. The sooner, the better. If Obama wins a second term (a definite possibility at this point), he will probably get one or two more Court appointments. Better to get it adjudicated now.
Nice points. I agree. It is absurd, and this is politicking from the bench.
I never gave id laws any thought either, as I was born and raised in CT, and I always had to show ID to vote. But not in MA.
However, the other day, I needed sudafed for a sinus headache, and I had to produce not only an ID, but had to sign for it so they could check to see how often I buy it????? AND to make sure if I come back too soon, they have me on record???? And these idiots have a problem verifying they are eligible to vote? Half this country, and most of WA and the courts, have lost their collective minds!
“We’re in the middle of a revolution and unless and until some Rs who can do something about it start doing something, it’s going to get very vicious in the not too far away future. Because a lot of ordinary citizens will finally not get pushed any more. Like pushed into ravines.”
Then it’s going to “get vicious”, indeed, because you as well as I know that the “R’s” aren’t going to do ANYthing that might substantially turn things around and right the ship of state.
It’s listing to the left, and may topple right over before too much longer....
AMEN to that!! BTTT
Ditto SC and Texas!
Another EXCELLENT point.
I think you’ll have to convince me that it would be any more difficult than voting as an alien. In either case, you give a name which may or may not be yours, an address at which you may or may not reside, and present documents that may or may not be real or (in jurisdictions that allow it) have some registered voter whose registration may or may not be legal vouch for you.
It helps if it’s part of a large, organized effort to flood polls with more same-day registrants than workers can process with due attention.
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.