Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now: Why voter ID bill may be unconstitutional

[highplainsdem]

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_2ee5adb3-6ae1-5a82-a93a-1df1d61d518d.html

We believe Wisconsin’s new voter ID law is overly burdensome on voters and that the state is simply unequipped to administer this law and ensure legal voters will not be disenfranchised or subject to a poll tax. We continue to confer with legal counsel about what potential legal challenges can be made against Gov. Scott Walker’s voter suppression bill.

The bill originally was based on Indiana’s voter ID bill. According to the U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s bill, the lower court found that “99 percent of Indiana’s voting age population already possesses the necessary photo identification to vote under the requirements.” The Supreme Court concluded that Indiana’s law was constitutional, specifically because so few Indianans were without the state-issued photo identification.

Wisconsin’s population is substantially less likely to have a state-issued identification. A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study showed the following about those without state-issued driver’s license and who would need to obtain photo identification under the Wisconsin voter ID bill:
• Over 178,000 elderly Wisconsinites.
• 17 percent of white men and women.
• 55 percent of African-American men and 49 percent of African-American women.
• 46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women.
• 78 percent of African-American men age 18-24 and 66 percent of African-American women age 18-24.

-snip-

Ross goes on to point out the other ways in which Wisconsin's situation differs from Indiana, specifically the tremendous difference in how many days county DMVs (where the photo IDs will have to be obtained) are open in Indiana, compared to Wisconsin. The majority of Wisconsin's DMVs are open only part-time, only 1 of Wisconsin's DMVs has weekend hours, and a quarter of Wisconsin's DMVs are open one day a month or less.

[murielm99]

1. Thank you.

That is a really good explanation of the constitutionality of this thing.

[Lefta Dissenter]

2. another one

Under the new law, if you are unable to sign your name at the polling place, you can't vote. The Democrats tried to put in an amendment stating that if you cannot sign your name because of a disability, you should be allowed to vote anyway, but, as with the other dozens and dozens of proposed amendments, the republicans said NO.

I can't imagine that will pass constitutional muster.

This, of course, is after we spent almost $6,000 per polling place in 2005 for accessible voting machines in order to comply with HAVA - these are machines that someone with virtually any disability can use without assistance.

[Scuba]

3. Good addition. Thanks (again). n/t

[Scuba]

4. Sign up to be a voter registration officer. Contact the municipal clerk...

...in the area you want to work.


We must fight back!!!