HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Wisconsin (Group) » "... the Wisconsin C...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:41 AM

"... the Wisconsin Constitution ... treats voting as a 'fundamental right.' "

Good interview with Earnest A. Canning, frequent contributor to the Brad Blog regarding the injunction against the voter ID law in Wisconsin, and how similar laws can be contested in Indiana and elsewhere. Contains links to many related materials.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ernest-A-Canning-on-the--by-Joan-Brunwasser-120329-102.html



Let's turn to another aspect of the Walker administration. The WI GOP has worked hard to impose mandatory photo IDs on the voting population. What's that fight all about and why is it such a big deal?

Photo ID laws are a part of a coordinated, nationwide voter suppression drive by the GOP designed to make it more difficult to register to vote, more difficult to cast a vote and more difficult to insure that one's vote is counted. That effort was described by Judith Brown Dianis, a civil rights litigator who testified at last September's hearings before the U.S. Senate, as "the largest legislative effort to roll back voting rights since the post-Reconstruction era."

...

WI Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan, in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker , applied classic Equal Protection analysis to the WI Photo ID law. Because the WI Constitution treats the right to vote as "fundamental," he subjected the legislation to heightened (strict) scrutiny to determine whether the law was unconstitutional. Where the lower level of scrutiny (minimum scrutiny) utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford required only that Indiana demonstrate that its photo ID law was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, under the WI Constitution, WI had the burden of proving that its photo ID legislation was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Based on "uncontested evidence," Judge Flanagan issued a temporary injunction. The government failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest in photo ID as there was no evidence presented of cases of in-person voter impersonation--again, the only type of voter fraud that could be prevented by polling place photo ID. Moreover, that uncontested evidence revealed a disparate impact upon minorities, the poor, handicapped and the elderly. Unlike the record before the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford , the uncontroverted evidence before Judge Flanagan revealed that obtaining photo IDs, for many otherwise eligible voters in Wisconsin, was unduly burdensome, and, in some cases, impossible.

11 replies, 1867 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:45 AM

1. Here's the problem I have

 

Not everyone has the right to vote. My 15 year old daughter does not have the right to vote. So how does someone at a voting location determine if my daughter has that right with out checking an ID. Doesn't my daughter have to prove that she has that right. If she proves that she has that right then she can not be denied. But I'm not sure someone is being denied the right to vote until they prove they have that right. I know I will get hammered for my view on this but it is how I feel. I actually think this may help the Dems fight cheating by Repubs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 11:25 AM

2. Voter fraud by impersonation is extremely rare. Extremely. And you would have to have many, many..

... people willing to commit voter fraud in this manner to have any impact on an election.

Voter fraud by impersonation is the ONLY voter fraud that would be prevented by an ID requirement. So it sounds like you are willing to make it harder for millions of people to vote- even impossible for some - in order to prevent this rarest of crimes.

That's not consistent with our Constitution which GUARANTEES us a right to vote. You don't have to prove it!


"A wise man will change his mind; a fool never will." - - My grandmother.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:41 PM

3. It does not guarantee my daughter the right to vote

 

It does not guarantee an illegal immigrant the right to vote.
It does not guarantee many fellons the right to vote.
It does not guarantee someone from Illinois the right to vote in Wisconsin.

What if I refuse to give my name and address. Should allowed to vote. I agree that no onw should have to pay for an ID if they don't have one. We should be able to make it free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:57 PM

4. No, none of those groups are guaranteed. But lawful citizens ARE. Further...

You can't refuse to give your name and address and still vote. You have to provide proof of residency to be registered and to vote.


But the burden of proof is on the party trying to deny voting rights, not on the voter.


Again, you seem to be OK with denying millions their RIGHT to vote to prevent even one person from committing identity fraud to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 04:23 PM

6. I am talking about Wisconsin. Do you really believe millions of people

 

are being denied the right to vote. Could you please point out all the people who have been denied the right to vote in Wisconsin? By providing proof of residency the burden of proof has been put on me. And why should I have to provide proof of residency. If I don't aren't I being denied the right to vote?

By the way, I love this site and this is one of the few things I disagree with the party on. I have been reading posts on here for a long time, but have never posted before the last couple of weeks. But I do love the passion and do respect the hard work all of you do. No matter how much money they have and no matter how loud they scream I always believe we have common sense and basic compassion on our side. Please keep up the great work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 04:47 PM

8. How many voters do you have to disenfranchise before you say too much?....

... In my case, it's one. Especially since the voter ID laws does nothing positive, only negative.

If you follow the news, there have been several stories about Wisconsin residents who have not been able to get a voter ID (no birth certificate, for example) and there are countless others who don't have the time/money to get an ID that should not be required and will not vote as a result. One of these is too much. The ID is free. The copy of a birth certificate, transportation to a DMV office, day off work, etc. are not, and this amounts to a poll tax.


Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right.


...Lyndon Baines Johnson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:10 PM

5. To register you must certify your qualifications under penalty of law

The registration form requires the voter to check a box certifying he/she is a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, residing at the Wisconsin address for 28 days, and not on probation or parole for a felony. "I certify that all statements on this form are true and correct. If I have provided false information I may be subject to fine or imprisonment under State or Federal laws. If completed on election day: I further certify that I have not voted in this election."

As to your second point, the problem isn't just that the ID should be free, but that the documents one needs to submit to get it will cost money and in some cases may be impossible to obtain at any price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 04:25 PM

7. First of all, your daughter has to register by providing a driver's license number

If she does not have one. She has to provide a SS#. These are used to confirm after the fact that she is eligible to vote.

Then on her registration form, she has to sign a statement that says she is a citizen of WI who meets all the eligibility requirements to vote and faces felony charges if she lies.

Lastly, before Wanker's version of Voter ID was implemented, if you did not have any information to verify who you are (DL# from WI or SS# with you when you registered), you could bring someone with you to sign as a witness that you are who you say you are. And, of course, the witness faced similar penalties for fraudulently signing registration papers as a witness. That provision is now gone.

So, yeah, your opinion will get hammered because no one, not even George Bush or AG Van Hollen has been able to prove that there is fraud going on in any significant percentage (say, something even approaching 1%).

Clearly, the penalties are enough of a deterrent that we don't have to prevent more than 1% from voting simply because they can't afford the proper ID.

It's amazing that the pukes managed to convince anyone that there were no checks in place before their unconstitutional Voter ID bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sybylla (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:38 PM

9. Doesn't this cost money? Why should someone have to do this?

 

I believe someone has to prove they have the right to vote before they can be denied the right to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 31, 2012, 12:17 PM

10. You think there's huge cost associated with keeping a database mandated by the Chimp's admin?

That's federal law. Created under contract to Dubya's supporters. It's already in place. Been in place for, what, 8 years. No state law can change the fact that there must be a database of voters kept. That voters in said database must be matched to existing databases in other government agencies like WDOT and Social Security. We've been paying for it for a long time. We've been verifying voters for a long time. That's how we know there isn't more than an occasional fraud perpetrated on election day. That's if you don't count election workers, who this Voter ID bill doesn't cover anyway.

Now, explain to me how someone who knows me and signs witnessing that I am who I say I am and that I live where I say I live in compliance with residency requirements is an expense to the state?

Explain to me why, I, a voter who lives in a small town, must drive home to get ID I've left there (since I don't have to have my DL with me to drive in WI) or take time off of work to go to the bank and get my passport so I can show it to the poll workers who all know who I am - who even knew me before I first showed up at the polls 20 years ago? "Oh, you're the ones who bought the house on...from..." Yep. Documenting all this, as you say, saves the state money? How does this not cost more time and cause lines in already understaffed polling stations?

Explain to me how my sons, who are already registered and regular voters, will cost the state more if they use their UW ID's to prove who they are.

Explain to me how thousands of Special Registration Deputies, who all worked for free to register people to vote following all the same rules the municipal clerks use, cost the state more money than forcing all those people to go to the clerks office tying up their staff registering voters. They are prevented from doing this as SRD's certified by the state GAB under this law. Now, if you want to register voters, you have to be certified by each municipal clerk and the clerk is allowed to refuse anyone certification on any grounds. Why should this burden be moved to the local municipal clerks in the first place? Whether they certify or don't certify SRD's, it's more time, more work and in the end more cost to the local tax payer. Why?

You see, this isn't about cost. Any GOPpie who tells you it is has either been duped or is participating in the lie.

It's about making sure only the "right" kind of people get to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonduel (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:20 AM

11. Rights vs. Privilage

Conservatives view voting as a privilage this is the reason why it is so easy for them to take it away.

Your daughter by reaching the age of 18 gains that right.

This is why registering to vote screens out ineligable people, your daughter would need to register first. So the arguemtn for an photo ID is false on that part.

Also, the mere fact that whe we PAY for a dirvers lisence or an ID is a poll tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread