December 24, 2011

"Next time Holder speaks, someone should run to a judge for a TRO."

"And file a race-discrimination suit against whoever’s hosting him. Every single time...."

That's mainly a joke, but this isn't:
... I anticipate that South Carolina (and Texas) will take the preclearance decisions to a three judge court in DC, with direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  I further expect that in this litigation, South Carolina (and Texas) will argue, among other arguments, that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional...
If review is expedited — which seems likely — the Supreme Court will be looking at this question and perhaps striking down the provision during the 2012 campaigns. Which party would be helped by that issue? Democrats will be positioned to preen about their concern for racial equality, and that puts Republicans in the position of championing the importance of leaving states alone to do things their own way, which — for some people at least — is a reminder of the bad old days when there clearly was discrimination and some states — mainly the states that are now stuck with the preclearance procedure — pontificated about "states' rights."

Nevertheless, I think the Republicans will be better off if this becomes an issue. First, people who reflexively impose that "bad old days" template are probably already voting for Democrats. Second, huge majorities of Americans support voter ID requirements, which means that few people buy into the race pandering. Third, playing the race card backfires once people clearly see that's all that's going on. And fourth, there really is something screwy about treating a few states differently from the other states, and if if a high-profile Supreme Court case makes people notice this strangeness, they'll be suspicious of the politicians and lawyers who strain to make the argument that it's right.

99 comments:

Kchiker said...

I think heroes of the civil rights movement would object to their efforts (or the efforts of those trying to keep civil rights legislation intact) being portrayed as “playing the race card”. The Voting Rights Act has been been around for a long time.

purplepenquin said...

I've said for quite a while that the gun and voting laws should be very equal. Ya say we need to wait 2 weeks before buying a gun, in order to prevent hasty decisions? Fine...then ya gotta wait 2 weeks before turning your ballot back in to be counted. Gov't wants to require only very specific IDs in order to vote? Fine, but those IDs are also the only ones that will be allowed to purchase a firearm.

jacksonjay said...

I'm confused. Didn't SCOTUS rule on this issue in 2008? What about that Indiana ruling? Do the preclearance requirements in SC and TX mean that those state will be treated differently? What about the 14th amendment?

Kchiker said...

The rule has always been that states would be treated differently. That is the precedent. It is bizarre, intuitively, but it was deemed the only possible remedy to states’ attempts to create restrictions that were intended to disenfranchise.

james conrad said...

The thing that bothers me is, how many lawsuits is this DOJ involved with in suing States? I cant ever remember this much fighting in federal courts over this much stuff, immigration,health care, voting issues, etc. Has it always been this way & the media just failed to report it or, this DOJ is suit happy pursuing a political agenda?

John Smith said...

jacksonjay, I'm confused too. Would one of you legal types please explain how this is supposed to work?

Kchiker said...

"The thing that bothers me is, how many lawsuits is this DOJ involved with in suing States?”

Actually I think the states are the ones suing to get the pre-clearance rules thrown out. The Voting Rights Act gives the DOJ the authority to block changes on a state-by-state basis.

jacksonjay said...

So we just assume that voter id requirements in SC and TX are intended to disenfranchise, but Indiana wouldn't dare be so evil? Who determines intent, DOJ,SCOTUS, Eric Beholder?

S said...

States are not treated differently arbitrarily, they are treated differently based on past behavior. The problem is that the behavior in question is generally 50-plus years old. It's almost a "corruption of blood" policy at this point.

Section 5 generally is less necessary than it was 50 years ago, and I wouldn't miss the death of preclearance, but it would sit a lot better with me if states with persistent violations weren't permanently grandfathered in. If some states are going to be treated as automatically suspicious, it should only be for a limited period of time.

Maguro said...

All this fussing about photo ID requirements makes me wonder about the DoJ's view of the voter registration process itself. Don't people have to go somewhere like a DMV to register, just like they'd have to go to a DMV to get a photo ID? How can photo ID requirements be racist and unconstitutional while voter registration is perfectly OK? You have to pretty much the same thing for both - go to some government building, stand in line and fill out paperwork.

Phil 3:14 said...

I've said for quite a while that the gun and voting laws should be very equal.

Huh!? Because?

Eirik said...

I've never understood the problem with needing ID. You need it to cash a check, get a job, presumably you need it to apply for welfare, but the claim is always that the poor don't have it. Has anyone ever actually looked at how many people actually lack valid ID?

Kchiker said...

"How can photo ID requirements be racist and unconstitutional while voter registration is perfectly OK? “

Because only one of these two things involves telling someone that they cannot vote. There would seem (to me) to be an underlying Federal constitutional right to do so. Bush v Gore said there was not. So it’s a mess.

Maguro said...

Because only one of these two things involves telling someone that they cannot vote.

What does this mean? You can't vote without being registered, can you?

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm confused. Didn't SCOTUS rule on this issue in 2008? What about that Indiana ruling? Do the preclearance requirements in SC and TX mean that those state will be treated differently? What about the 14th amendment?"

The SCt rejected an Equal Protection challenge, in the Indiana case Crawford because there was a failure to show enough of a burden and it was a facial challenge to a law with a “plainly legitimate sweep.” That is, the state’s anti-fraud interest beat the generalized burden relied on to attack the statute on its face.

The litigation Prof. Hasen is talking about would be an attack on congressional power to pass the Voting Rights Act and target a few states, treating them differently from the other states, based on conditions present 40 years ago. This is a question the Court strained to avoid in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District in 2009:

"More than 40 years ago, this Court concluded that “exceptional conditions” prevailing in certain parts of the country justified extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 334. In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different Nation. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today."

You might enjoy reading Justice Thomas's opinion in that case, reaching to constitutional question:

"The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold §5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer exists. Covered jurisdictions are not now engaged in a systematic campaign to deny black citizens access to the ballot through intimidation and violence. And the days of “grandfather clauses, property qualifications, ‘good character’ tests, and the requirement that registrants ‘understand’ or ‘interpret’ certain matter,” Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 311, are gone. There is thus currently no concerted effort in these jurisdictions to engage in the “unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution,” id., at 309, that served as the constitutional basis for upholding the “uncommon exercise of congressional power” embodied in §5, id., at 334.

"The lack of sufficient evidence that the covered jurisdictions currently engage in the type of discrimination that underlay the enactment of §5 undermines any basis for retaining it. Punishment for long past sins is not a legitimate basis for imposing a forward-looking preventative measure that has already served its purpose. Those supporting §5’s reenactment argue that without it these jurisdictions would return to the racially discriminatory practices of 30 and 40 years ago. But there is no evidence that public officials stand ready, if given the chance, to again engage in concerted acts of violence, terror, and subterfuge in order to keep minorities from voting. Without such evidence, the charge can only be premised on outdated assumptions about racial attitudes in the covered jurisdictions. Admitting that a prophylactic law as broad as §5 is no longer constitutionally justified based on current evidence of discrimination is not a sign of defeat. It is an acknowledgment of victory."

Revenant said...

I think heroes of the civil rights movement would object to their efforts (or the efforts of those trying to keep civil rights legislation intact) being portrayed as “playing the race card”.

Why should I care? If the shoe fits...

edutcher said...

As several people elsewhere have noted, this will endanger the Demos' chances of winning next year if it's upheld.

Unless Mickey Mouse and Dick Tracy really do have valid ID.

garage mahal said...

The civil rights movement itself was playing the race card! Can only imagine if Fox was around back then.

purplepenquin said...

Huh!? Because?

'cause one Major Political Party goes toooo far when it comes to restricting gun rights, and the other Major Political Party tends to go toooo far when it comes to restricting voting rights.

Revenant said...

Can only imagine if Fox was around back then.

Given that Fox is pro-Republican and opposition to civil rights consisted almost entirely of Democrats...

Hagar said...

"I think heroes of the civil rights movement would object to their efforts (or the efforts of those trying to keep civil rights legislation intact) being portrayed as “playing the race card”.

I can excuse Clyburn, Lewis, and others that experienced the civil rights movement in the 60's. It was the biggest thing that ever happened to them, and indeed it was a big thing.

But it was 50 years ago, and the world has moved on, though they have not.

Interestingly, I saw some murmurs the other day from someone about the possibility of suing Eric Holder's DoJ for racial discrimination on the basis of their disrespect for Mexico, Mexicans, and our Spanish speaking population.

Tim said...

America's Dairy Cow said...

"The civil rights movement itself was playing the race card! Can only imagine if Fox was around back then."

This is exactly right. Because nothing at all has changed since then; legal segregation and discrimination in education, employment, housing, lending, voting and other parts of modern life is the still the law of the land across these 57 states.

The race card must always be in play; gotta do whatever it takes to keep African-Americans on the Democrat plantation.

Eat Mor Chikin.

Revenant said...

the other Major Political Party tends to go toooo far when it comes to restricting voting rights

Requiring an ID is "going too far"?

Sheesh, I *wish* that was all you needed to buy a gun. When I bought my last handgun I needed ID, a background check, a short course in handgun safety, a multi-week waiting period, and the purchase of a carrying case and trigger lock.

Tim said...

"...the other Major Political Party tends to go toooo far when it comes to restricting voting rights."

If you mean some party besides the New Black Panther Party action in support of Barack Obama and Democrats in Philadelphia, do you mind providing a citation of credible evidence?

I mean, you don't just make shit up, right?

garage mahal said...

If you mean some party besides the New Black Panther Party action in support of Barack Obama and Democrats in Philadelphia, do you mind providing a citation of credible evidence?

So the NBPP was intimidating.....other Democrats? Of all winger conspiracy theories that make no sense, this one ranks right up there.

purplepenquin said...

Requiring an ID is "going too far"

Depends on the ID and how hard it is to acquire.

Not sure how things are where you live, but here in Wisconsin we have some counties where the DMV is only open for only a couple hours every month.

And yes...I totally understand that to some folks spending 2-3 hours in the middle of the workweek to get their Official Government Picture taken isn't a hassle what-so-ever, but can you understand that to some folks that is an impossible task to accomplish?

When I bought my last handgun I needed ID, a background check, a short course in handgun safety, a multi-week waiting period, and the purchase of a carrying case and trigger lock

Personally I think that is far too many requirements for a basic right. Do you beleive those to be acceptable rules/regulations?

traditionalguy said...

Thaddeus Stephens uber alles.

Losing a war and being an occupied territory has long term effects.

Scott M said...

Every time a voter ID law gets passed, Garage dies a little inside.

Bruce Hayden said...

You might enjoy reading Justice Thomas's opinion in that case, reaching to constitutional question:

My favorite Thomas opinions seem to involve race. As usual, he cuts through the politically correct BS, and makes a compelling argument that this part of the VRA was well justified (then) 35+ years ago by the concerted efforts of (invariably Democratic) politicians to enact laws disenfranchising Blacks as fast as they were struck down by the courts. And, preclearance was justified by significantly lower Black voter registration levels. But, that is no longer the case in those states. Jim Crow is dead, and black registration rates are essentially as high as white rates.

One of the interesting features of this (and, I think other) Thomas opinions is how often he quotes his own dissents.

In others, one might think that this is self-serving. But, I would suggest that he does himself a service here, since he invariably speaks more clearly and persuasively on these subjects than do the other Justices he serves with.

AJ Lynch said...

Since old sins never go away, just respond "tell us about Marc Rich's pardon" anytime AG Holder opens his mouth.

jacksonjay said...

It seems to me that some of our "Progressive" friends are oftentimes opposed to progress!

DADvocate said...

Democrats will be positioned to preen about their concern for racial equality,...

For all their preening over the past few decades, they haven't done much, if anything, for minorities. 30% of black males spend time in prison, huge illegitimacy rates, fatherless rates, black on black murder rates, poverty rates, etc. With friends like these...

The Dems also hold a hypocritical position on voter ID. For practicing your second amendment rights, they want IDs, and the history of where you lived going back to age 18 (42 years for me) and a police background check plus a class. The entire process cost me about $200 plus a lot of time.

What Dems really want is the ability to rig elections with impunity.

Cedarford said...

I wonder why Holder and various black morons of the Congressional Black Caucuses as well as progressive Jewish lawyers of the ACLU have not sued to block people, or at least black people - from having to produce a photo ID to board a flight, purchase a firearm, or buy a bottle of wine.

Isn't that racially discriminatory?

Same black people that are discriminated against in voting can't fly? Can't buy Chardonnay?

Tim said...

America's Dairy Cow said...

"So the NBPP was intimidating.....other Democrats? Of all winger conspiracy theories that make no sense, this one ranks right up there."

Color me unsurprised by ADC's feigned ignorance of the facts.

Eat Mor Chikin!

Kirby Olson said...

Holder is Acorn by other means.

rwnutjob said...

Both states were warned not to go to the (in)justice department first. They should have gone straight to the court.

garage mahal said...

Color me unsurprised by ADC's feigned ignorance of the facts.

The facts: BLACKITY BLACKITY BLACK BLACK!

Tim said...

"And yes...I totally understand that to some folks spending 2-3 hours in the middle of the workweek to get their Official Government Picture taken isn't a hassle what-so-ever, but can you understand that to some folks that is an impossible task to accomplish?"

Yes, because this bar to official ID is stopping people from enrolling in school or welfare programs, opening bank accounts, gaining employment, traveling, etc.

Who knew that "the undocumented" really meant all those minority/Democrat voters potentially disenfranchised by the Great White Republican Conspiracy Against Official Identification?

Utterly risible. Bet you couldn't stop chuckling as you wrote that!

Maguro said...

And yes...I totally understand that to some folks spending 2-3 hours in the middle of the workweek to get their Official Government Picture taken isn't a hassle what-so-ever, but can you understand that to some folks that is an impossible task to accomplish?

Impossible, really? Wow.

Anyway, if it's interference with work that's the issue, that shouldn't have a disparate impact on blacks, who are more likely to be unemployed. Must be some other reason that photo IDs are racist, what else you got?

SunnyJ said...

This great discussion and questions might be well informed by reading the article posted on Big Government by J. Christian Adams regarding the DOJ actions, Holder and staff and the recent NYT article which uses inaccurate data. Adams has history with Holder and DOJ and does a great job of separating out the applicable laws, differentiating between Crawford and this SC action, as well as being painfully honest about the unintended consequences of laws written to meet an agenda, both right and left.

john marzan said...

Eric Holder and the Democrats are gonna steal the election in 2012.

PatCA said...

I think we are at the point in our society when the old sins have been largely eradicated--rampant pollution, racism, gender discrimination--so it's time to review the punitive nature of the laws designed to cure them.

Showing an ID is not tantamount to exclusion of blacks. The DOJ of course does not want to give up its power, but it's time to take a look at that.

ricpic said...

Hold your putz, Holder,
As you're about to go down;
Defiance grows bolder
To privileging browns.

Kchiker said...

There is a huge divide regarding perceptions of voter fraud in this country. What I’ve seen indicates that it is virtually non-existant. Even the Republican National Lawyers Association wasn’t able to come up with much when they went looking for documented instances. Ann, however, seems to consider it a given.

If "Mickey Mouse" signs a petition or a voter registration form, this is not an instance of vote fraud unless Mickey shows up to vote, which would attract significant attention/investigation.

I would have more sympathy for ID requirements if it were demonstrated that fraud constituted more than .1% of the vote in a given state.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

How is this position not racist:

Getting a photo ID is discriminatory because black people are not as capable as white people in getting one.

EDH said...

Once you realize that Obama is one of the most cynical politicians ever, it all becomes very clear.

Old Dad said...

A surprising number of Americans don't have valid photo ID, for whatever reason. And it is time consuming to get replacement birth certificates, social security cards, etc.

Do yourself and your kids a favor. Keep a copy of birth certificates, and social security cards in a safe place. Let them know you have done this and how to gain access if something happens to you. Make sure they get a passport by the time they are 18.

It's a helluva lot easier to gather these documents on your schedule, than to try to fight the system when you are under the gun; for example when junior gets a dream job overseas and that starts in two weeks but he doesn't have a passport.

Terry said...

Kchiker wrote:

I would have more sympathy for ID requirements if it were demonstrated that fraud constituted more than .1% of the vote in a given state.

The Washington state gubernatorial election of 2004 was decided by 129 votes:

Although Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges found 1,678 votes that had been illegally cast -- many by felons -- he refused to subtract the vast majority from either candidate's total. Bridges, who found no evidence of fraud, said Republicans who challenged the count failed to prove those votes affected the outcome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600190.html

Most people on the Left believe that fraudulent voting is a myth promoted by the Right. This belief is false.

Curious George said...

"Tim said...
I mean, you don't just make shit up, right?"

"purplepenquin said...
Not sure how things are where you live, but here in Wisconsin we have some counties where the DMV is only open for only a couple hours every month."

Tim, the answer is yes. There are zero WI counties that "the DMV is only open for only a couple hours every month."

Kchiker said...

"Most people on the Left believe that fraudulent voting is a myth promoted by the Right. This belief is false.”

If state law dictates that felons should be removed from voting registration rolls, then they should be removed.

This is not to say that someone whose voter registration should have been removed but was not...is committing voter fraud by showing up at the polls.

I will be much more willing to back more stringent voter requirements if it is demonstrated that voter fraud is at all significant.

Jess said...

I would have more sympathy for ID requirements if it were demonstrated that fraud constituted more than .1% of the vote in a given state.

I would have more sympathy for the argument that photo ID is too onerous a burden if I weren't required to produce photo ID to get on a plane, withdraw cash from the bank, buy alcoholic beverages...

Tell you what. You arrange things so that the government can't require my bank to demand photo ID, and I will completely get behind your idea that it can't require photo ID to vote.

Terry said...

Fraudulent voting guilty plea, by Democrats working with the ACORN-affiliated "Working Families Party":

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Vote-probe-arrests-include-councilmen-2414466.php#photo-1952666

It's real, it happens, and it benefits Holder's party.

purplepenquin said...

The entire process cost me about $200 plus a lot of time.

That's about how much it will cost Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw (who has been voting ever since 1948) to acquire an acceptable ID in order to vote in upcoming elections. Personally, I think it is wrong to be required to pay that for either voting or having a gun.

And yes, I am able to grok how befuddling this concept might be to people who have always owned a car, but ya'll really got to come to terms with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of WI citizens that don't have a Driver's License.


What is REALLY ironic about this whole situation is that the same people who are demanding that state services be cut are also demanding that we spend more time/money/energy trying to acquire an ID from that very same entity.

Do you think that is part of the plan or do ya think they simply didn't think things through?

kcom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yetanotherjohn said...

If it is discrimination to require an ID to vote, then why is it not discrimination to require an ID to fly, buy a gun, etc. Try going between states without a driver's license (either to drive or fly). Try getting a social security card without a driver's license (which can create a catch 22 as you need a social security card to get a driver's license).
Wouldn't the motor voter act (where you can sign up for voting where you get your license) also be objectionable as a subtle form of racism.
We may see the supremes re-visit the question of constitutional equality under the law vs racial preferences.
If the supremes uphold Obamacare and knock down voter ID, I suspect that it would be a pyrrhic victory for the dems.

kcom said...

"The civil rights movement itself was playing the race card!"

No, it most certainly was not. It was playing the "all men are created equal" card.

The civil rights movement (at least the sane civil rights movement) wasn't saying "Give us our rights because we're black." They were saying "Give us our rights because we're human." It was just the opposite of the race card.

What happened, though, was that certain cheeseballs have seen the personal advantage in using (or should I saw warping) that noble and worthy idea to their own ends. Hence, we get Eric Holder playing the race card, i.e. saying, in essence, despite my highly questionable behavior and egregious lack of transparency in one of the most important jobs in the US government that any other person would be called on to answer for I'm going claim that my race gives me a pass on answering that because I think I can cynically use that accusation to draw attention away from my shortcomings.

That is playing the race card. Asking for equal rights regardless of skin color is not.

Hagar said...

If there is no fraud, why the determined resistance to providing photo ID?

Kchiker said...

"It's real, it happens, and it benefits Holder's party.”

The instance you cite is repugnant. It’s also a city primary election where a small number of altered absentee ballots could make a difference.

If this is the evidence for vote fraud that is supposed to justify a state to turning people away from the polls, I’m more comfortable with my position than I was previously.

Bruce Hayden said...

What is missed by many is that the preclearance provisions of the VRA are an extraordinary remedy designed to counter a century of concerted efforts by the Democrats in much of the south to prevent Blacks from voting. What would happen is that they would impose some barrier to voting that disproportionally fell on blacks. Then, the federal courts would ultimately strike down that barrier, after a lot of litigation. They would immediately implement another barrier. This went on for most of a century, and in 1965, black registration levels throughout much of the south were 30-50% lower than white levels.

This was what preclearance was designed to address - the repeated and systematic imposition of different legal barriers to voting by blacks, extending over a century, and resulting in such low levels of black registration and voting.

The solution was to require that laws affecting voting in these states had to be precleared with the DoJ. This is completely contrary to almost all of the rest of federalism - where the federal government only steps in afer the fact, and is only justified because of the century long systematic imposition of Jim Crow laws.

What has changed is that blacks now have comparable registration levels to whites. Not 30-50% lower, but maybe a point above in this state, and a point below in another. In short, the VRA has been a success.

But, with the disappearance of the difference in registration (and voting) percentages between black and white, the justification for this extraordinary remedy has disappeared, and Justice Thomas argues that it would likely fall to the 10th Amdt (since it had been justified under the 15th Amdt).

And, AG Holder's imaginary harms from voter ID are likely to be laughed out of court, given that the registration differences, which were used to justify this power he is wielding, have disappeared. Keep in mind, we aren't talking 30-50% of the black population, as we were in 1965, but rather, a fraction of one percent, if that. And, even if it were a percent or two, that would most likely not justify the intrusion into states' rights resulting from preclearance.

Maguro said...

The entire process cost me about $200 plus a lot of time.

That's about how much it will cost Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw (who has been voting ever since 1948) to acquire an acceptable ID in order to vote in upcoming elections. Personally, I think it is wrong to be required to pay that for either voting or having a gun.


Can you break down that $200 cost? Because according to the Wisconsin DOT website, the IDs are free to any eligible voter who requests one for the purpose of voting.

Are we talking about cab fare to and from the DMV?

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

Terry said...

Last year in Crow Wing County, MN, four mentally challenged adults were transported to the ballot place by workers at the home where they lived and allowed to vote -- with the assistance of the workers.
http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/110210/new_20101102028.shtml
The home openly supported the DFL.
The four adults had been found incompetent to vote.
The voting was done early, before the polls opened, as absentee voting. A grand jury was convened, but did not indict. Conspiracy is a very difficult crime to prove. Personally I think that the fact that the votes were absentee ballots cast in person makes a case for fraud -- the home probably didn't request ballots by mail because it would have looked suspicious to have that many absentee ballots mailed to a single address.
More illegal votes cast in MN, this time in 2008. If you read straight news articles about voter fraud, you can see how difficult it is to prove intentional fraud, even when fraud is widespread:
http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/110210/new_20101102028.shtml

But the Left just keeps repeating the lie that there is no voter fraud. Fools believe them.

Hagar said...

And Garage, yes the NBP's probaly were there to make sure other Black people voted "right," since it was a "Black" precinct.

Which brings up another thing that has bothered me. In New Mexico, at least in Bernalillo County, we have gone through some perturbations over voting machines, though the old ones never caused any trouble worth mentioning, and we now have machines that record paper ballots filled in in the American way with #2 pencils, which provides a paper trail, which is good, but also provides a lot of opportunity for the poll staffs to see how you are filling out your ballot.
Probably not too important in Albuquerque - the "big city" where hardly anyone know their neighbors - but quite significant in the smaller rural communities I think.
Not voter fraud, but potential voter intimidation, oh yeah!

Kchiker said...

"The four adults had been found incompetent to vote.”

If anyone has been found incompetent to vote, their registration should be purged.

Voting improprieties should be addressed. You can’t assume a voter ID law would have prevented this situation.

Tim said...

"Tim, the answer is yes. There are zero WI counties that "the DMV is only open for only a couple hours every month."

Right. Because if there was disparate impact on minorities getting ID, we all know the NAACP, the Urban League, ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc., etc., would file lawsuits post-haste to end that practice, pronto.

purplepenquin said...

There are zero WI counties that "the DMV is only open for only a couple hours every month."

Depends how much ya wanna quibble over the word "couple"...but the truth is that in some counties the DMV is only open one day every two or three months.


Bayfield County's DMV is only open on the 2nd Wednesday in January, March, May, July, September and November

The DMV office in Chippewa County is only open on the 4th Tuesday in February, April, June, August, October and December.

The DMV in Forest County is only open on the 2nd Thursday in February, April, June, August, October and December.

The DMV in Iron County is only open on the 2nd Wednesday in February, April, June, August, October and December.

Oneida County's DMV office is only open on 1st Thursday in January, March, May, July, September, and November

Pepin County only has their DMV available on the 3rd Tuesday in February, April, June, August, October and December.

Pierce County hasn't even had a DMV since last month, and it'll be next month before their new office is opened.

The DMV in Vilas County is only open on the 1st Thursday in February, April, June, August, October and December.

Washburn's DMV office is only open on the 1st Wednesday in January, March, May, July, September and November.



The DMV offices in Adams, Ashland, Burnett, Clark, Florance, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Marathon, Marquette, Oconto, Polk, Rusk, and Trempealeau counties are only open one day a month.

Many other DMV offices in other counties are only open two days a week.

Again, if ya'll have never lived/worked in a rural area I can totally understand how unreal this may seem to ya...but the hours are posted for anyone who cares enough about the convo to actually look 'em up.

Curious George said...

Maguro said...
Can you break down that $200 cost? Because according to the Wisconsin DOT website, the IDs are free to any eligible voter who requests one for the purpose of voting.

Are we talking about cab fare to and from the DMV?"

Maguro, you are correct. State ID's are free for voting. PP is being dishonest here...again. The person in question has the unusual circumstance of not having a physical birth certificate (one of the proofs of identity that are required for the state ID, and having a misspelling in her record of birth with the state. They are estimating the cost to get that corrected and get a birth certificate at $200.

Cedarford said...

yetanotherjohn - "If the supremes uphold Obamacare and knock down voter ID, I suspect that it would be a pyrrhic victory for the dems."

And your so-called "Supremes" - given the growing argument that balance must be restored between the Branches and lawyers dressed in robes are not the utimate dictators in control of what the Executive, the States, and Congress may do.
Newt goes too far, but the days of judges as the masters of us all... and waving the laws and Constitution lawyers made aloft as some sort of Qur'an we all must mindlessly grovel to...are coming to a close. A day approaches when the People decide the black-robed Ayatollahs need a comeuppance.

Rule of law is not shorthand for Rule of Lawyers.

purplepenquin said...

Can you break down that $200 cost?

That's how much it'll cost her to get her birth certificate. They are only normally $20, but the doctor misspelled her name so she needs an amended one...which costs a lot more.

Here is one of the news reports if you're interested in learning more: http://tinyurl.com/bls7b5t

garage mahal said...

but the hours are posted for anyone who cares enough about the convo to actually look 'em up.

They do not care. They will keep on deluding themselves into thinking the photo ID laws are for some Just Cause, instead of keeping as many people as possible from voting. Everyone knows that's what it's really all about. Republicans in Wisconsin spent years trying to find fraud and they couldn't, and passed photo ID anyways.

Kchiker said...

"yetanotherjohn - "If the supremes uphold Obamacare and knock down voter ID, I suspect that it would be a pyrrhic victory for the dems.”

The ACA and Voting Rights Act had executive and legislative approval.

If you’re denying judicial power to overturn acts of the other two branches, aren’t you saying that these laws should be left intact by the Supreme Court?

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...

Depends how much ya wanna quibble over the word "couple"...but the truth is that in some counties the DMV is only open one day every two or three months. "

No need to quibble. Couple means "two".
Most of these counties will have an expansion of days/months starting in January, in plenty of time for the next election (or even the recalls if they happen). In all cases people in these counties have had months...and many opportunities...to get an ID if they need one and want one.

Tridad said...

I don't get it. In Illinois a person needs a photo ID to register to vote, but it's discriminatory to make them show that ID when they vote?

If it discriminates in voting because certain people don't have photo IDs how is it less discriminatory in the registration process?

Terry said...

Kchiker, you wrote (re voter fraud):

What I’ve seen indicates that it is virtually non-existant. Even the Republican National Lawyers Association wasn’t able to come up with much when they went looking for documented instances.

Yet I've been able to come up with many incidences of voter fraud, even one occasion when it likely tipped the results of a state wide election (the Washington Governor's election of 2004).
The RNLA study on voter fraud & voter ID? You mean the one headlined

Vote Fraud: The Evidence
Vote Fraud Is All Over the Map
46 states have had vote fraud convictions or prosecutions in the last decade

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

Hagar said...

Photo ID being necessary to exist in today's society, I think the Wisconsin rural counties' MVD office hours would have been amplified long ago if they represented a serious obstacle to getting driver's licenses or other ID's.

The same could be said for the lady with the misspelled birth certificate, and in her case, since it was the State that screwed up, the State should bear the expense.

Anyway PP's argument(s) is/are irrelevant.

purplepenquin said...

Photo ID being necessary to exist in today's society,

That lady is 84 years old and she was existing in today's society just fine.

And that's just one example we've heard about...

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
but the hours are posted for anyone who cares enough about the convo to actually look 'em up.

They do not care. They will keep on deluding themselves into thinking the photo ID laws are for some Just Cause, instead of keeping as many people as possible from voting. Everyone knows that's what it's really all about. Republicans in Wisconsin spent years trying to find fraud and they couldn't, and passed photo ID anyways."

Yes, they are. And her list is wrong starting in January. But let's put your stupid premise to a test. Let's break down the Penguin list to see who they voted for:

http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/ANAL04G1.jpg

Bayfield: Barrett
Chippewa: Walker
Forest: Walker
Iron: Walker
Oneida: Walker
Pepin: Walker
Pierce: Walker
Vilas: Walker
Washburn: Walker
Adams: Walker
Ashland: Barrett
Burnett: Walker
Clark: Walker
Florance: Walker
Green: Barrett
Iowa: Barrett
Lafayette: Walker
Marathon: Walker
Marquette: Walker
Oconto: Walker
Polk: Walker
Rusk: Walker
Trempealeau: Barrett

Walker: 18
Barrett: 5

Ooops.

No, this isn't about fretting over rural counties...it's a smoke screen to ultimately allow voter fraud populated Democratic strongholds like Milwaukee, Madison, Eau Claire, Racine.

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
And that's just one example we've heard about..."

Out of 2,160,000 votes.

.000046%

MathMom said...

This video is worth your time, and I encourage everyone who cares about honest elections to check out True The Vote in your state. Help clean up voter rolls, be an election judge or poll worker, or get involved in some other way to make sure the vote in your state is true.

Terry said...

The democrat voting philosophy seems to be:
-No one should ever be prevented from registering to vote.
-No registered voter should ever be turned away from the polls.
-Once a vote is cast, it cannot be removed from the vote total, regardless of how many illegitimate votes are known to have been cast.
-Trust us. There is no voting fraud, and you are a racist if you believe that there is voter fraud.

garage mahal said...

it's a smoke screen to ultimately allow voter fraud populated Democratic strongholds like Milwaukee, Madison, Eau Claire, Racine.

Riiight. That voter fraud that has been investigated for years with nothing to show for it, costing the state millions, and will cost the state millions more to implement the new voter ID laws. Why can't you just be honest and admit there is no fraud, and you don't give a shit if people are prevented from voting because you want your side to win?

purplepenquin said...

Does anyone else know what CurioGeo was trying to establish with his "Well, those counties voted for Walker!" post? 'cause it doesn't make any sense at all...

Kchiker said...

"The RNLA study on voter fraud & voter ID? You mean the one headlined

Vote Fraud: The Evidence
Vote Fraud Is All Over the Map
46 states have had vote fraud convictions or prosecutions in the last decade”

They cite 311 cases going back to 1997...some of which were thrown out in court. Out of how many hundreds of millions of votes?

purplepenquin said...

The same could be said for the lady with the misspelled birth certificate, and in her case, since it was the State that screwed up, the State should bear the expense

That was proposed, but the WI-GOP said no.

jeff said...

"progressive Jewish lawyers ". Hey, look at that. Another well reasoned editorial on the transgressions of Israel. Nothing bigoted here, no sir.

David said...

It turns out Holder and Obama are Race Men after all. Sad. But Merry Christmas to them anyway.

David said...

This of course is another example of Congressional failure. The extension of section 5 makes a court challenge inevitable in a changed world. The SC can't continue to duck the issue, and once again we will have a polarizing judicial decision that should have been ironed out by the legislature.

That said, having moved from the north to the south 7 years ago, and having spent time in the south in the 1950's and 60's, I assure you that everything has changed. The evils this law was directed at are gone. They remain only in the uninformed minds of a new class of bigots that are being exploited by a cynical class of politicians.

Terry said...

Gosh, Kchiker, it turns out that we are on the same page.
I don't think any measures should be taken against voter suppression until we not only have evidence that it has occurred, but that there were resulting convictions for voter suppression and the vote suppression indisputably changed the outcome of an election.
That doesn't seem unreasonable, does it?

Hagar said...

Also in the minds of those who rose to power based on their fights with the old system and cannot think of anything new to say.

Revenant said...

Depends on the ID and how hard it is to acquire.

It requires a driver's license or government-issued photo ID.

Anyone who says it is difficult to acquire either of those things is a goddamned liar and unworthy of anyone's time.

That aside, as I noted earlier acquiring a gun requires the above ID plus numerous other hoops to jump through.

Revenant said...

They cite 311 cases going back to 1997...some of which were thrown out in court. Out of how many hundreds of millions of votes?

It is hilarious to see people fight tooth and nail against any form of ID verification and then turn around and insist there's no significant fraud.

How would we know? Every time I've ever voted here the only step they took to confirm my identity was to ask my name and confirm that, yep, someone with that name is on the voter list. Obviously we hardly ever catch people committing fraud; the law in most states forbids any attempts to catch fraudsters!

LilEvie said...

I would have more sympathy for those that oppose vote ID, except that in the states where it has already been in effect for several years there has been no drop in minority voter registration or turnout; in fact minority voting has increased.

fivewheels said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robin said...

The Feds require photo ID to get on an airplane, to buy a firearm and even to obtain a bankruptcy discharge.

But states can't require one to vote?

Well, that's the kind of illogic I'd expect to see Mahal in here defending.

As for Eric Holder, he should already have been impeached for illegal gun exports and accessory to murder.

Paco Wové said...

"you don't give a shit if people are prevented from voting because you want your side to win?"

Not everybody thinks like you, Garage.

gbarto said...

Holder is just working up the justification for Operation Faster and Furiouser, in which the Justice Department gives tens of thousands of fake ids to known criminals so they can track who uses them and where if they remember to.

james conrad said...

The bottom line?, there is no legitimate reason to oppose photo ID when casting a ballot when the govt offers one for free to those that do not have one.

cryptical said...

Its funny how when given evidence of fraud the left will say "those are isolated incidents" but then pull out the story of some 84 year old lady with a document problem and point to it as proof of a more widespread problem.

Anthony said...

The point of requiring id to vote is, besides the obvious reason of limiting fraud, to weed out those people too stupid or lazy to make even a minimal effort to be connected to their society before casting a ballot. If the Republicans ever started getting a majority of the votes of the stupid and lazy, they'd be against voter ID laws, too.

Greg said...

Since the Supreme Court has previously held Voter ID laws to be constitutional and not racially discriminatory, how can Holder and his minions hold differently?