Judge bars enforcement of photo ID requirements
Source: Wisconsin State Journal
A Dane County judge on Tuesday permanently barred enforcement of the photo identification requirements of Wisconsin's voter ID law, saying that it imposes too great a burden on voters in Wisconsin than the state constitution allows.
Circuit Judge David Flanagan ruled that Wisconsin Act 23, the voter ID law, "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card."
That requirement, he wrote, imposes a "substantial burden" upon a significant proportion of state residents who are registered or eligible to vote because of the cost and difficulty of obtaining documents needed to apply for a state photo ID. That creates a "substantial impairment" to the right to vote guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution, he wrote.
"I think that the judge recognized the severe flaw in Wisconsin's photo ID law in that it imposes an unreasonable burden on a very large number of people," said Richard Saks, lawyer for the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera, which sued to the state to stop the Republican-authored law.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/judge-bars-enforcement-of-photo-id-requirements/article_0f7d9fea-d05d-11e1-81ef-001a4bcf887a.html
The voter ID voter/suppression issue chalks up a victory for us/the Wisconsin 99%er's!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)Next stop, Pennsylvania and Florida!
rocktivity
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)but we gotta expect it to be appealed
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)they can steal an election. I live in this good ole boy state of Georgia, where picture ID is required to vote as well. Granted, in electing a president my vote will not count unfortunately .. all votes will go Republican. Damn the South .. they are the problem in this country.
Doesn't GA provide free ID's to anyone who needs one?
Igel
(35,300 posts)A lot of people apparently need to go through bureaucratic hoops to show they were born. Birth certificates aren't cheap.
(Actually, they're not that expensive. The problem is mostly figuring out where to get them. A larger point that applies to far fewer people is that some, mostly elderly, people weren't born in hospitals. There are ways of establishing the legal equivalent of a birth certificate when you're young, but if you're 75 it's harder to find the witnesses. But you still have to figure out what those are. It often requires lawyers, which, unless you find a nice lawyer willing to work pro bono, takes beaucoup money.)
GreenMask
(48 posts)How many does it affect?
I really see this more as a problem for the young than the elderly, who likely have some sort of grandfathered ID.
I don't know that it's a proven problem right now.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)
savalez
(3,517 posts)What is required to get a so-called free ID? A birth certificate perhaps? Is that free? Is the ride to the records office free? Will you get a free day off work to go there? Not to mention older folks who don't even have a birth certificate on record. I don't think there is any such thing as a "grandfathered ID" either. At least I've not heard of it.
And why all this? Does everybody have to suffer just because a few people like Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney allegedly committed voter fraud?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-05/news/32537732_1_voter-id-new-voter-id-cards
Over 750,000 Pennsylvania Voters, many in Philadelphia for that is the single largest area with a population who do not own or drive an Automobile.
Other forms of Photo ID is also permitted, Passports, Military ID or Collage photo IDs.
Now these same people tend NOT to have pass ports or Military ID. Some may have a Collage Photo ID if that ID does NOT have an expiration date it can NOT be used This is a problem for ONLY TWO COLLAGES IN PENNSYLVANIA ISSUE IDs WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE, ALL THE OTHER COLLAGES IDs HAVE NO EXPIRATION DATE ON THEM (the Collages expires them the same way a Credit Card is expired, it is marked on the computer and when ever the ID is used, it kicks up as invalid).
Notice the difference between Military IDs and Collage IDs in regards to the need to have an expiration date. The reason for this is simple, enlisted IDs have always used the last date of enlistment as the expiration date, Officers IDs have no expiration date and are marked "Indefinite". When I was in the Service 20 years ago, Officers service ends with their resignation which is up to them to do OR not to do thus they ID must reflect that fact, i.e. they are officers till the time they resign. This is still the law, and if an Officer retired (but did NOT resign) he or she may still have a Military ID with an indefinite expiration date marked on it. Thus a Military officer can use his or her Military ID without an expiration date, but a Collage student can not use his or her Collage ID without an expiration date.
Military ID for Medical purposes do have an expiration date for Officers, BUT that was do to how the Card was formatted for Computer use, it was an error that would cost to much to fix:
http://moaablogs.org/financial/2008/09/expiration-date-on-the-back-of-your-military-id-card/
Pennsylvania even accepts that some Military IDs made have an "Indefinite" expiration date on it, but is still acceptable for voting:
http://phillyelection.com/PA_new_voter_id_law_military_voters.pdf
GreenMask
(48 posts)Photo ID's are required for government services, bank accounts, cashing checks, etc. The number appears inflated. The issue is probably overstated from both sides.
Kingofalldems
(38,454 posts)savalez
(3,517 posts)So only folks with bank accounts can vote? Ridiculous.
savalez
(3,517 posts)More than 10 million potential voters in states with voter photo ID laws live over 10 miles from an office which issues such identification more than two days a week, according to a new report from the Brennan Center.
Of that group, 500,000 do not have access to a car or another vehicle, according to the report. While many of those individuals may already have identification, the report argues that such a burden discourages individuals from exercising their right to vote.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/voter_id_brennan_center_study_10_million.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now a bank, as a private enterprise can impose such a requirement on anyone who wants to open an account, but for any state of the Federal Government to do so would open the requirement that such an ID MUST be issued by them free of charge. No Government has ever wanted to issue IDs so the Government has NEVER required people to have ID to open an account, cash checks etc. People go to the welfare office all the time WITHOUT ANY ID and get Welfare. When I moved to my present residence NO ID was required even to get the Utility service turned on.
In fact the Uniform Commercial Code avoids the whole issue by assuming all transaction covered by the Code are in cash.
My home state of Pennsylvania (along with Vermont) was the last state to adopt photo driver's license and then only in the mid 1980s AND only do to the Federal Government saying Pennsylvania (and Vermont) had to do so or lose access to Federal Highway funds. The State set up a system that barely meet the Federal Requirement in the 1970s and presently that system does NOT meet Federal ID requirement (but I suspect the Federal Government to do nothing for it means readdressing the one part of Obamacare that the Supreme Court did strike down, the Federal Use of Federal Funds to force States to do what the Federal Government wants to states to do, even if it involved federal funds).
When the Government says you need an ID, the Government will issue it, for example people in the Military, people in Federal Law Enforcement and other Federal Employees (Or State employees if the State is the Government requiring ID).
Sorry, your presumption is wrong, the Government DOES NOT require any ID, let a alone a Photo ID. You can go to any Court House and NOT have any ID. Go to any federal Park or even the IRS without any ID. You can write a Check to the Federal or State Government without any ID. You can get on any public transportation with any ID (Planes and Amtrak require ID. but while Amtrak is owned by the Federal Government it is technically a private corporation, and its justification is you have the option of walking, an option the Courts have fully embraced when it comes to transportation, as long as walking is an option, Governments can impose any restrictions on other forms of transportation).
Please note Amtrak requires ID, but Photo ID is NOT the only acceptable ID, any form of Government ID, including a welfare card or a birth certificate is also permitted (The Actual requirement is two IDs, one issued by a Government agency, i.e. the Welfare Card or the Birth Certificate, and the other can be an rent receipt or a utility bill in the person's name and address).
Amtrak ID Requirements:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1241267382692&pagename=am%2FLayout
The reason for the second method for Amtrak is that it is well known that many people have no photo ID and to require a Photo ID would put to many people off Amtrak, thus the second option.
My point is simple, there is NO requirement to have any form of ID, the only Federal Requirement is if you are an Federal Employee OR want to use some sort of interstate transport (and then the option of walking is permitted WITHOUT any ID). Furthermore the ID requirement for Transport does NOT require a Photo ID, Photo ID is permitted by other IDs are also permitted (Including a paper birth certificate along with a paper copy of a utility bill).
GreenMask
(48 posts)But it's pretty hard to get by without one in quite a few transactions. I simply think that the problem is far too overstated on both ends. The recent news report appears quite inflated, to say the least.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm certain you have the will and the savvy to look into, research, and then present us with the numbers that better validate your own opinions, yes?
To say the least...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Remember among the poor, Cash is still king. Most of the poor do NOT have credit cards or other forms of Credit (I remember in the 1970s and 1980s Cashiers wanted to see your Driving License if you use a Credit Card, but that ended in the early 1980s when both Visa and Master Card said showing any thing BUT the card was NOT needed and it slowly change so by the 1990s you no longer saw cashiers asking for your driver's license when you used a Credit Card). Thus since the 1990s you do NOT need a photo ID to use a Credit Card (and Visa and Mastercard both said a photo ID was NEVER needed, the card was sufficient by itself).
Banks can require a form of ID, but most Banks also permit ID by signature i.e. when you opened your account you sign an application, and they can check that application to see if the signature on the Check is the same as on the Application. Today, this is even easier, the teller just look at the PDF picture of the application, in the 1980s and 1990s Tellers would look it up in their card index if you cashed the check at the branch you opened the account in.
Yes, it is easier if you have a Photo ID, but most Cashiers and Tellers will work around the absence of one using older (and more reliable) technology (I.e. copies of your Signature). In inner cities driver's licenses are often NOT needed (You do NOT need a Licence if you do NOT own a car). Thus people in the suburbs can NOT think of NOT having a driving license, yet people in the inner city can go their entire life without one. Things are in walking distance, or they get around by public transportation. Thus it is NOT that hard to live without a Driver's License, the most common form of photo ID. It is done all the time by many people in the inner city (According to the most recent study, 18% of the population of Philadelphia for example).
http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/clips?id=0568
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-05/news/32537732_1_voter-id-new-voter-id-cards/2
My state's welfare card (Which replaced the old paper Welfare card) is like a Credit Card, no photo just numbers and the user's name and the user's signature on the back of the card. I live in Pennsylvania so the people in Philadelphia lack of Photo ID does NOT surprise me, in fact I have had several clients tell Administrative Law Judges in Social Security Hearings that they left their Driver license expire for they could NOT afford to renew it AND they do not drive, and this is in RURAL Pennsylvania). Thus I have had several clients who do NOT have a current Driver's license and have survived quite well without one.
My point is simple, it is still possible to live in the US without any form of Photo ID, it is more common then a lot of people think.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)are so many ways of practicing vote fraud - direct and indirect.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)before the election?
And if so any chance they will do the right thing.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Three or four months or something like that? Or am I thinking of one of the states?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)they have to eliminate it.
PSPS
(13,593 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Since they is NO Federal Question or issue, the US Supreme Court can NOT hear the case. This is strictly how the State of Wisconsin interprets its STATE Constructional requirements as to who can vote.
Now if a State Constitutional Requirement violates a Federal Law or the Federal Constitution, then the US Supreme Court can hear the case. For example, West Virginia has a State Constitutional provision that requires segregated schools. That violates the 1964 FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and even West Virginia has acknowledge since 1964 that the Civil Rights Act overrules the West Virginia Constitutional Requirement for Segregated schools.
There is NO Federal Law that requires a Photo ID or bans a Photo ID, thus unless it can be shown that the State Constitutional ban on Photo ID (Which is what the Judge ruled was the case) somehow violates the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights act (or some other Federal law), there is no Federal issue and the State gets to decide the case based on its own State Constitution.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)We know these laws are passed to disenfranchise voters, especially poor and minority voters. So I think a Federal suit is appropriate, if some one were to go forward with one. (I will not holder my breath for the DOJ)
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The US Supreme Court held that as a matter of FEDERAL LAW, a state could require Photo ID (or NOT require Photo ID). For this reason the recent attacks have all used STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS instead of Federal Law or the Federal Constitution.
More on the US Supreme Court Decsion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board
The Actual Opinion is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
Kteachums
(331 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)There is virtually no single person voter fraud. You can't stuff a typical ballot box enough to make a difference.
Now, election fraud is different. That moves vast quantities of votes via computer hacking into the machines or the master database.
That can move the numbers like in Ohio.
Then there is the fraud of a partisan SCOTUS.
Disenfranchisment is as phony as the reasons cannabis is illegal.
Ignorant Sheep buying into the lie without any study or thought.
It used to be Russia which was the punchline of "What A Country!"
Now it's us!
