March 13, 2012

"It's a shame activist Dane County judges continue to stand in the way of common sense."

Said a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, after Circuit Judge Richard Niess found that Wisconsin's voter ID law violates the state constitution.
"Today, the second time a judge has ruled against this heinous law, provides Wisconsin a moment to reflect on just what was given away by Scott Walker's tea party Republicans when, instead of focusing on the issues facing our public, they rushed instead to limit their freedoms," said [Democratic Party] chairman Mike Tate....
Here's some detail about the state constitutional provision Niess relied on. It is nothing like the arguments against voter ID laws based on the U.S. Constitution that you may be familiar with. It's about the "Suffrage" section of the state constitution that declares a big group of residents to be qualified electors, then gives the legislature the power to pare away from that group (in 2 specific categories, convicted felons and incompetent persons). To agree with the judge, I think you need to see a person without an ID as a type of person who is being excluded from the right to vote (and not within one of those 2 categories, so not within the legislature's power to exclude).

170 comments:

Dose of Sanity said...

Professor, how do you come to that conclusion?

Implementation. SECTION 2. [As repealed April 1986;
created April 1986] Laws may be enacted:
(1) Defining residency.
(2) Providing for registration of electors.
(3) Providing for absentee voting.
(4) Excluding from the right of suffrage persons:
(a) Convicted of a felony, unless restored to civil rights.
(b) Adjudged by a court to be incompetent or partially
incompetent, unless the judgment specifies that the person is
capable of understanding the objective of the elective process or
the judgment is set aside.
(5) Subject to ratification by the people at a general election,
extending the right of suffrage to additional classes. [1983 J.R.
30, 1985 J.R. 14, vote April 1986]

Where you place the ID requirement? I didn't realize our Constitution was this strict - it seems to foreclose this issue almost entirely? You obviously see it differently, and I'm curious to know where.

TmjUtah said...

We all know that it's RACISSSSSSSST! to require citizenship to vote.

Oops, I meant to say ID there.

"Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser."

I sure hope Patton was right.

garage mahal said...

They couldn't kill the legacy of Bob LaFollette or Gaylord Nelson quick enough for the coup d'état.

bagoh20 said...

Does this mean a person cannot be prevented from voting twice or as someone else? It's clearly not allowed to be prevented by the Constitution as Dose of Sanity's post shows.

Ann Althouse said...

I love when liberals get all enumerated-powers-y.

Remember that when the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the individual mandate case later this month. Stick to your principles!

Ann Althouse said...

Note that I have not stated a position on the voter ID case.

Requests that I explain my "conclusion" make no sense.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Bago - in only the area I linked, I suppose that's true. You should read the rest of it, I guess.

@ Althouse: For one, I'm not certain the mandate IS constitutional. I at least recognize the grounds you can argue it is though. (and thank you for that)

Can I have a real answer? Is there some precedence aside from felon cases?

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Althouse:

To agree with the judge, I think you need to see a person without an ID as a type of person who is being excluded from the right to vote (and not within one of those 2 categories, so not within the legislature's power to exclude).

^ THat

Kansas City said...

Voter ID is an interesting issue because he shows how liberals have no shame when making a totally ridiculous argument. Everyone lives with the need for photo ID in our country, but liberals pretend it will keep people from voting. And they manage to do so with a straight face.

This judge did some clever lawyering to rule against the law, but I assume it will never hold up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

bgates said...

bagoh20 got there first.

bagoh20 said...

1) How or why does the state register voters (section 2(2)) without the concept of ID?

2) What is the practical difference between no ID and just assuming everyone is registered and letting them vote just for showing up.

3) Give one good reason why requiring ID is so unfair that it overrides the unfairness and disenfranchisement of ineligible people being allowed to vote.

#3 is a question - not a statement.

Dose of Sanity said...

This judge did some clever lawyering to rule against the law, but I assume it will never hold up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Before assuming anything about our Supreme Court, you might want to google it. It's not a run of the mill supreme court.

Adjoran said...

Is this the only authorization for voting regulations? If that's true, I can vote naked, right? Take video and phones into the voting area?

There can be NO restrictions whatever on the actual process of voting? I can butt in line, and they can't stop me under the Constitution?

Something isn't correct.

Ann Althouse said...

To have an opinion, I would have to study the Wisconsin case law.

I have not done that. I don't know how the courts have interpreted that language.

Obviously, there have to be some regulations about voting, and the constitutional section is specifically about "suffrage" -- who is a "qualified elector."

I don't think a person without an ID is being disqualified from voting the way, say, convicted felons are disqualified.

There's just a step in the process that hasn't been completed. To say not presenting an ID is excluding you from the category of people permitted to vote seems like saying people who don't go to the polls when the polls are open are being excluded. It would be strange to say closing the polls at 8 is creating a new category of disqualified voters -- those people who do not arrive before 8.

But, as I said, I have not studied the case law and do not have an opinion about it.

garage mahal said...

We're at the point where Althouse sounds like the protective Mother sticking up for the troubled juvenile delinquent/half retarded kid. "Well.....!!! He didn't mean to shit in the pool like that!"

Dose of Sanity said...

1) How or why does the state register voters (section 2(2)) without the concept of ID?

2) What is the practical difference between no ID and just assuming everyone is registered and letting them vote just for showing up.

3) Give one good reason why requiring ID is so unfair that it overrides the unfairness and disenfranchisement of ineligible people being allowed to vote.


1) You can be a registered voter and not be allowed to vote under the PHOTO ID law. That should make the difference clear enough.

2) In wisconsin, you can(Could) register at the polls. We COULD just show up and vote.

3) That's a long question we've debated here before. It's worth noting that before someone else does: It's free to get a voter ID in Wisconsin under the law. There is a question of "Does the potential harm (voters not voting) of requiring an extra procedural step counter any real harm, or only the perceived harm of voter fraud" (voters voting illegally)

Ann Althouse said...

If I say you need to buy a particular argument but I don't say whether or not I buy it, then I'm not taking a position. I'm explaining the argument.

bagoh20 said...

"@ Bago - in only the area I linked, I suppose that's true. You should read the rest of it, I guess."

I suggest we all follow that advice. It's the only way to be sure.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Althouse - oh, I see what you are saying now. I mistakenly assumed that you meant "under that section of the constitution you would have to assume it created a class of people...".

I think your point is a good one - that the law is not under that section of the Constitution - in that the law doesn't make them unqualified electors, but instead regulates the behavior of only qualified electors.

I'm not sure I'd go all the way along with it - but that makes the final sentence much more clear. Thanks!

Lem said...

I think you need to see people without IDs as a type of person who is being excluded from the right to vote.

Aren't hermits, mountain man, the Jeremiah Johnsons of the world unlikely to vote to begin with?

Also couldn't the same logic (don't want to exclude anybody form the right to vote) be used to include dead persons.. the dead don't have IDs.

If you say, 'dead people are not alive'.. Very well then, isn't that "being alive" a requirement of the same type an ID would be?

How about this date of election business?
Why can people vote whenever they want?
Isn't that a burden that might exclude people from their supreme right to vote?

Ann Althouse said...

"We're at the point where Althouse sounds like the protective Mother sticking up for the troubled juvenile delinquent/half retarded kid."

You're talking about "retarded" people?

What are the rules about what words make you despicable — "slut"? — and what words you can just throw around for fun?

Dose of Sanity said...

If I say you need to buy a particular argument but I don't say whether or not I buy it, then I'm not taking a position. I'm explaining the argument.

I know - I actually wasn't thinking your "conclusion" on which position, but was asking for your conclusion as to "why you would need to make that assumption" under the judge's decision. You've done so.

garage mahal said...

To have an opinion, I would have to study the Wisconsin case law

At least your readers have a little propaganda from a Walker campaign spokesperson to tie us over in the meantime.

Cullen Werwie is a bit limited in what he can divulge though due to being granted immunity in the John Doe. Oh well! Ssshh.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Althouse

I'm a borderline persona non grata among the commentors here by being so liberal and PC all the time, but I abhor the word "Retarded". I really wish we would all raise that word to the same standard as other highly offensive words.

Chase said...

It really boils down to this (and we all know it:

Voter Fraud happens.

It is dishonest - that's why it's called fraud.

Which class of persons - Democrats or Republicans - has a value system that is more likely to value honesty?

Answer: Republicans.

Therefore, Democrats - more likely to be dishonest because their value system rewards dishonesty -
are not only more likely to commit and encourage dishonest voting (voter fraud, but are highly likely to be dishonest about the reasons for not wanting to constrain voter fraud.

We all know this. How nice it would be to start being real, to discuss the issue on it's merits and not the dishonest Democrat spin.

But that is not possible, becuse the first person Democrats lie to is themselves.


Caveat - there are of course liars upon both sides of the political spectrum.
But while there is a majority of Republicans constrained from lying because of their esteem of the value of the moral virtue honesty, there are almost no such Democrats in existence. It is a statistical, moral impossibility. To be a Democrat is to be a holder of lower moral virtue regarding honesty. If a person held to honesty as a high moral virtue, that person could not be a Democrat.


This explanation is provided as a courtesy for the young among us that are frustrated at the double standards/hypocrisy emanating so organically from Democrats. The pathology is sociopathic.

Michael said...

The law doesn't exclude anyone from voting; it merely requires that they demonstrate that they are who they say they are. There has been no showing that this places an undue burden on any class of potential voters. The judge's ruling is absurd.

Ann Althouse said...

"At least your readers have a little propaganda from a Walker campaign spokesperson to tie us over in the meantime."

Oh, bullshit. I gave you equivalent propaganda from a Democratic spokesperson.

What would balanced coverage look like to you? Only the left?

Lem said...

garage.. why are you putting your foot in your mouth like that?

Didn't the judge agreed with your side? .. at least for now?

You should be rejoicing.. not name calling.

Metanis said...

Isn't this just a typical attempt to create a "new" class of victim? At least they are consistent in their methodology.

Chase said...

The judge's ruling is absurd.

The judge is a Democrat - congenitally dishonest. See above.



Pre-emptive strike: when some begin to list dishonest "Republicans", realize that there are those claiming to be Republicans who are not, ergo, Democrats.


Kids, you can test this yourself. Ask your friends how high they rate honesty as a moral value on a scale of 1 - 10. It works on adults, too!

Then, ask them when it's okay to be less than honest. Wait for their answer. If it takes more than a few words, that person is now or will be a Democrat.



Next lesson coming soon. Hatred is a high moral value for Democrats.

garage mahal said...

There has been no showing that this places an undue burden on any class of potential voters. .

Actually it has been shown to violate the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. That said, I can't vouch for the confederacy though. They more than likely do things "differently".

Synova said...

How is the state supposed to pare-away felons and incompetent persons (or non-residents) if they can't ask for an ID?

Couldn't the ID check be deemed essential to adhere to the constitution rather than prohibited?

bagoh20 said...

"1) How or why does the state register voters (section 2(2)) without the concept of ID?"

"1) You can be a registered voter and not be allowed to vote under the PHOTO ID law. That should make the difference clear enough."

Not really. My point was why bother registering if their is no proof that the person voting is registered.

Imagine if you were required to get a drivers license to drive, but could never be asked to show it, or even prove who you are when you take the test. Why have one.

You can clearly see how ridiculous this is unless you are a partisan on the side that wants to cheat. There really is no other reason to be against it, regardless of what the law is. If the law is foolish, then any reasonable person interested in the fairness of the vote should want it changed or clarified to require ID.

The arguments against it are both disingenuous and inadequate.

chickenlittle said...

But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the same monster.

So Wisconsin still hasn't reached a bipartisan solution to what is obviously a partisan problem. The second judge just ruled for one side of the "monster."

Anga2010 said...

I would already label a person without an ID as incompetent to vote, especially since the new law requires them to get an ID.

bagoh20 said...

"I'm a borderline persona non grata among the commentors here by being so liberal and PC all the time,..."

Absolutely not!

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who appreciates your point of view, and your obvious desire to honestly debate, and learn from it. In fact, I wish we had 50 more like you. Please keep it up. We need you.

Besides, the qualities I just attributed to you mean that you will someday be a conservative, libertarian, or other non-liberal.

Kohath said...

If no one is excluded from having an ID, then this law doesn't exclude anyone the right of suffrage.

chickenlittle said...

Synova said...
How is the state supposed to pare-away felons and incompetent persons (or non-residents) if they can't ask for an ID?

Doesn't ACORN Local 240 check that?

bagoh20 said...

OK, what if my dog shows up with a sticky note on his forehead that reads:

"I'm Garage Mahal registered voter from ll34 Sensitivity Street in Madison. Please ignore my physical appearance, I'm handicapped as you can see, and I need some help voting."

On what basis can she be refused.

Steve Koch said...

So activist dem judge engages in typical dem judicial activism to subvert democracy to improve dem opportunities at voter fraud. Read Alinsky to understand dem tactics, the believe that if you ain't cheating, you ain't tryin' and that the ends justify the means.

Anybody who has seen the organized voter fraud by the dems over many decades (Acorn, for example) has to realize that to preserve democracy, we have to protect the voting process. Proving that you are who you say you are is a normal part of living in our society (to prevent chicanery) and is necessary to protect the voting process.

Anybody who is against voter ID laws is either a cynical, corrupt dem hack or an idiot completely lacking in common sense.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Bago

Haha, I'll copy that to the libertarian I blog with.

Your views are the minority I fear. Oh well! I don't get such lively debates elsewhere. Bastion on the internet, for the most part.

Back at it:
The driving thing is a bad analogy - we don't have a right to drive. Makes the rest of it go off the rails a bit.

Why is there no "harm" standard first? Prove voter fraud before adding anything that might result in some disenfranchisement, however minor?

Dante said...

You should check out James O'Keefe at project veritas.

He makes some fun points, like it requires an ID to purchase alcohol, to register in a hotel, to get on a plane, etc., but when it comes to voters, it's simply "Sign 'em up." Drinkers, people's right to travel, etc., which is in the constitution, isn't it? all can require a valid ID, but not to vote, huh? I am not sure how more than one conclusion can be drawn on this. Are these other items not as discriminatory, perhaps even more so?

Dose of Sanity said...

Anybody who is against voter ID laws is either a cynical, corrupt dem hack or an idiot completely lacking in common sense. Can we avoid these logical fallacies?

For a taste, here it is in reverse: Anyone who feels the need to disenfranchise poor voters to "fix" nonexistant voter fraud must either be naive or a racist.

See? It goes no where. Why not just have a policy debate on A) Whether there is voter fraud B) Whether Photo IDs would meaningful prevent it and C) whether voters would be disenfranchised in some meaningful sense.

Stick to A, B, and C and we might all learn something.

Lem said...

You know how many leftist are always praising the French..

Well, well, look it here..

They [French voters] walk to the ballot box and show their voter registration card (not compulsory) and are required to prove their identity..

I bet our Supremes skip over that part of the French constitution when they are making our constitution live and breathe.

Dose of Sanity said...

For example, the oft-cited voter fraud is ACORN.

Note that the Photo ID law would have zero effect on every type of fraud that ACORN was caught doing. (For the record, ACORN's problems came from unrealistic quotas on vote registering employees - they basically needed to cheat to keep their job. This did not, at all, have any bearing on the election.

bagoh20 said...

"The driving thing is a bad analogy - we don't have a right to drive. Makes the rest of it go off the rails a bit.

That's a bit of a dodge again to avoid addressing the point that the purpose of registration is defeated by not requiring ID to prove the registration belongs to the voter voting.

"Why is there no "harm" standard first? Prove voter fraud before adding anything that might result in some disenfranchisement, however minor?"

There is disenfranchisement only without the ID requirement. You know that voter fraud happens, so why the pretense about it? Where is the proof of voter suppression? If the ID is already required by law and free to everyone, then suppression is impossible. I know you are smart enough to see this, but you don't want to, because, well, I guess it's still just part of your identity that you cling to. It clearly can't be based in reason or concern for an honest election. That would lead you to the other side.

alppuccino said...

It is interesting that a judge who considers himself so intellectual and nuanced would rule that not having ID disenfranchises voters, yet at the same time having your vote canceled out by "Mickey Mouse" or "Elvis, The King" does not.

yibei123 said...

Good post. Do best, no regret. Ray ban sunglasses, cheap gucci sunglasses, burberry sunglasses sale on http://www.egalass.com/.

BenJCarter said...

Nope don't wanna go there.



Would biometrics like DNA,fingerprints, retina and iris scans meet the "something everyone has" requirement?



That's scary.



I'd rather submit to the capitalist requirements of getting my ass downtown for the free id.



But IANAL. Just a voter, in another State.

Ben Quick said...

I should think 1) Defining residency pretty much covers the voter ID law. Part of proving residency (whatever is required) is showing that evidence presented is valid for the particular voter. Assuming a utility bill is sufficient proof of residency, just showing the bill can only be part of the process. One must show that the name on the bill is in fact the holder.
Similarly, a name on the voter roll is proof one is a resident, but that proof must be linked to the individual presenting himself as the voter. Without requiring that link, there is no point in even having the roll.

EDH said...

Judge Niess? So, what happened to Judge Flanagan the recall petition signer?

Is the ability to produce a valid state-issue photo ID truly a new “qualification” to vote, or is it required proof of a voter’s existing qualifications, enacted pursuant to the legislature’s authority to provide for the “registration of electors”?

A little hard to tell from the decision.

To be clear, this court does not hold that photo ID requirements under all circumstances and in all forms are unconstitutional per se. Rather, the holding is simply that the disqualification of qualified electors from casting votes in any election where they do not timely produce photo ID's satisfying Act 23's requirements violates Article III, Sections 1 and 2 the Wisconsin Constitution.

As expected, the Wisconsin state courts will impose their authority under the Wisconsin state constitution to decide what voter ID requirement is acceptable.

cubanbob said...

dose your logic is akin to a dog chasing its tail. so if you show up to vote and can't prove who you are how is the election official supposed to verify you are not an exludable person? with your logic you can bus in whatever number of voters needed to win an election, all of them either jane or john doe, address any public park.

bobby said...

It's beginning to sound like I and my fellow Republican Minnesotans ought to take a quick drive over the river on Election Day and do our part for the Guv.

If I'm reading this judge correctly, the legislature has the power to disenfranchise residents only in certain specific enumerated situations. Not having ID is not listed as an approved situation for disenfranchisement. So, if I show up driving my Minnesota-registered car, wearing my Vikings cap, and singing the U of M fight song, the poll judges will have doubts about my residency, but as soon as they have those doubts about my residency, they have to stop thinking about it, because they cannot keep a resident from voting, and they are not allowed to insist that I prove my residency and thus show my entitlement to vote by asking that I identify myself because that would infringe on my rights that are guaranteed to me through my residency, which I don't have to prove.

This judge smokes a LOT of pot, doesn't he?

bagoh20 said...

"This judge smokes a LOT of pot, doesn't he? "

It's for a medical condition, which I think someone mentioned above using an a non-PC term.

Let's look at this dispute another way, by accepting the allegations of both sides:
There is fraud; and there is suppression. Let's assume they are exactly equal in magnitude.

Now, what?

Without the ID requirement the fraud will not be discouraged, and so may worsen, without ever being addressed or fixed. If we decide this is never going to be the requirement, then democracy itself could be severely compromised without recourse.

With the ID requirement, those who wish to vote will get ID, and those who don't value their vote will not, but everyone eligible who wants to vote, can.

Which outcome do we want?

Unless you are looking for more votes from the dishonest or the apathetic, you only have one way to go. Because the cost of no ID is disenfranchisement of the honest and the responsible, and that's dishonest, irresponsible, and undemocratic.

Kirk Parker said...

Dose of Frivolity,

"I'm a borderline persona non grata among the commentors here by being so liberal and PC all the time"

Don't flatter yourself--you get flack not for your POV but for the way you present it (starting with, but by no mean only for, your pretentious pseudonym.)

And here's a perfect example:

"A) Whether there is voter fraud B) Whether Photo IDs would meaningful prevent it.."

AS IF there were only one kind of vote fraud.

Alex said...

What are the rules about what words make you despicable — "slut"? — and what words you can just throw around for fun?

Ann - don't expect garage mahal to ever show shame or humility. He's a typical arrogant liberal who believes the ends justify the means.

Alex said...

anyways, the point of the ID law is to stop the busloads of illegal aliens and convicted felons from deciding close elections.

kimsch said...

Ben Quick said: Assuming a utility bill is sufficient proof of residency, just showing the bill can only be part of the process. One must show that the name on the bill is in fact the holder.

Earlier yesterday regarding the Texas Voter ID law and Holder Julian Epstein said that people could bring in a utility bill and that should suffice.

As I was discussing with my mom a bit later, I could go to her house and pick up one of her utility bills, go to her polling place, say I'm her and show the bill as "proof".

That utility bill only "proves" that someone with that name receives bills at that particular address.

Utility bills can be used to establish residency for many things but they are not identification. To register my child for school, the district requires a utility bill as part of the documentation. I must also provide my drivers' license.

On the question of students voting: Students should be voting in their home precinct unless they permanently change their residence to school. Even if they live "at school" for 8 months and home for 4 months. This goes for out-of-state students as well. If a student's residence is Michigan but the student goes to UW that student should be voting at home. If the student wants to vote in WI, that student should officially change residency to vote in WI with the WI ID. He or she would save money too, by changing residency the student can now pay in-state tuition rates instead of out-of-state.

Students allowed to vote at school while still maintaining residency elsewhere could conceivably vote in both places.

Regarding the voter fraud issue: Wasn't there an issue in Milwaukee in 2004 with bussing in of "voters" from Chicago? Weren't there votes counted in excess of the total number of people recorded as having voted in Milwaukee?

Alex said...

The only reason this fight exists is to decrease the number of Democrat voters.

bobby said...

"The only reason this fight exists is to decrease the number of Democrat voters."

Well, yeah. The illegal-alien Democrat voters, the out-of-state Democrat voters, the felon Democrat voters, the "no, really, I live in seven Wisconsin counties all at once!" Democrat voters, the fifty-three Democrat voters named Betsy who all live at 809 West Bull Street, the seven-year-old Democrat voters, the canine Democrat voters . . .

Steven said...

Both sides are provably idiots on the issue.

1) If there's fraud that photo IDs would impact, then after adopting photo ID requirements, total votes as a percentage of population should go down (ceteris paribus). Instead, studies show there's no reduction in voter turnout.

2) If photo ID requirements make it harder for legitimate voters to vote, then after adopting photo ID requirements, total votes as a percentage of population should go down (ceteris paribus). Instead, studies show there's no reduction in voter turnout.

Given that there is no objective evidence to support the narrative of either side, it is quite impossible that either side of the issue actually reached their conclusions on the basis of rational evaluation of the evidence. Instead, partisans on both sides are tribal fanatics who hold their positions simply because it's an excuse to engage in the pleasure of demonizing their opponents, and then rationalizing excuses for their disgusting indulgence in hatred.

Chip Ahoy said...

Until you come up with a trunk load of votes mostly for one candidate while the votes are being counted swinging the election that makes a comedian a senator. So yeah, no evidence for the suspicion of fraud whatsoever.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Actually it has been shown to violate the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin


Hysterical.

"Shown" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Unknown said...

"You can clearly see how ridiculous this is unless you are a partisan on the side that wants to cheat. There really is no other reason to be against it, regardless of what the law is."

The reason is to exhaust the resources of the other side by requiring them to litigate anything that would give them an advantage.

If one is required to expend significant resources to get to common sense, one has less resources to do mischief (in the eyes of the partisan).

Thunderstixx said...

Don't forget the original premise of the court cases against voter ID...

That is Blacks and Latinos are too incredibly stupid to get voter ID's without the help of a master liberal !!!

Otherwise known as Liberals are the voice of racism in the 21'st century !!!

rhhardin said...

The left's id rules everything.

Fen said...

The Left won't embrace voter ID on principle. They will only call for it when fraud disadvantages them.

So the only way to get them to the table is for the Right to engage in voter fraud. Vote early, vote often.

Fen said...

The illegal-alien Democrat voters, the out-of-state Democrat voters, the felon Democrat voters, the "no, really, I live in seven Wisconsin counties all at once!" Democrat voters, the fifty-three Democrat voters named Betsy who all live at 809 West Bull Street, the seven-year-old Democrat voters, the canine Democrat voters

Ha! What a list. And you still left out all the dead Democrat voters.

Michael Haz said...

The Democrats prefer to be strict constructionists in this circumstance. Strange, isn't it?

Perhaps they are really keen on the use of fraudulent votes against Governor Walker, just like they used fraudulent signatures on the recall petitions.

It's the only way the can win.

Plus, they regard minorities as being so utterly incompetent that they can't obtain an ID card.

Such transparent fools.

Bill M said...

"Note that the Photo ID law would have zero effect on every type of fraud that ACORN was caught doing."

Except that whole registering Mickey Mouse and the same person multiple times at different addresses schtick.

redleg said...

So, how does one demonstrate that he is not constitutionally excluded from voting, for example, not a convicted felon? How does one demonstrate he has the right to vote in Wisconsin? My name is common enough that I'll bet someone with that, or a very similar name, is a convicted felon in Wisconsin. How does Wisconsin verify that I'm not that convicted felon with the same name or that the convicted felon is not using my name to vote legally? With ID requirements being banned, does that mean that, as a Virginia resident, that the only obstacle to me voting in Wisconsin is a long drive?

Karga said...

I don't know why people have to argue on this issue. The right to vote it is subject to proof of citizenship. Now in order to get a fair result in any election the authorities that are entrusted the elections are required to enact laws to obtain that fair result. ID(and there is no ID valid its name without a photo)is a simple requirement at the time a legal elector has to provide to be allowed to vote. In a country which I believe has 250 million residents no one is allowed to act as living at the times of George Washington with the few peers who knew each other and obviously there was no need of photos as yet not available.

Rusty said...

Dose of Sanity said...
For example, the oft-cited voter fraud is ACORN.

Note that the Photo ID law would have zero effect on every type of fraud that ACORN was caught doing. (For the record, ACORN's problems came from unrealistic quotas on vote registering employees - they basically needed to cheat to keep their job. This did not, at all, have any bearing on the election.



You're not from Chicago are you?
ACORNs sole reason for existence is to seal elections for democrats.
You have only to look to the state to your south to see where this gets you. We have a thing called motor voter. If you get a drivers license in the state of Illinois you are automatically registered to vote. Chicago has the largest hispanic population outside of LA. See where this is going?
Democrats rely on non residents registering to vote.


Yes. I agree , 'retarded' was a poor choice of words, but you have to realize for the left to make their point they have to make their opponents to appear less than people.

Renee said...

On primary day, I voted with no verification of who I was. After I voted I went to pick up a missed delivery of medicine for my cat at the U.S. Post Office with slip in hand, I was required to show I.D.

If you have an I.D. law, there has to be an alternative in situations who have no or expired I.D. One example was have the voter's signature acknowledging,
they are who they are, if they can not provide I.D.

When I enroll my child in public school, as the parent, I need evidence of who I am and I live within the school district.

School fraud, claiming a child lives in a more affluent suburb, mirrors some of the same concerns of voter fraud.

Mark said...

Renee, I just registered my child for school in WI.

No photo I'D needed. Birth Cert and proof of residency.

Biggest hassle was the immunization form.

Moneyrunner said...

Dose of Sanity makes the comment that voter ID disenfranchises poor voters. This assumes facts not in evidence while simultaneously assuming those poor people voted because he called them “voters.” People who are not voting are not voters.

If people without drivers licenses or other forms of common ID can get a voter ID card in Wisconsin with no charge, and they can, then I fail to see how anyone can be disenfranchised for economic reasons who is legally eligible to vote.

His (?) request for a policy debate uses terms that are incorrect and beg the question.

Regarding his defense of ACORN, I assume that he means to imply that “merely” getting people registered to vote who either did not exist or were ineligible to vote was not voter fraud. For that to be true in any way is to claim that voter registration has absolutely nothing to do with voting.

We do not have a dose of sanity but a partisan who fails to realize that he is not making the logical arguments that he thinks he’s making.

SGT Ted said...

I like how liberals have to pretend that poor people or old people cant get IDs.

When those IDs are required for poor people to purchase cigarrettes and booze, which they somehow manage to do. And old people need IDs to access their SS and other benefits. Which they somehow manage to do.

It is so obvious they are not being honest with their arguments, as their arguments have been answered by reality.

The lib judge should be removed from office for violating his oath.

John M Auston said...

Here's all you need to know about this issue.

1. Democrats oppose Voter ID because it makes it harder for them to cheat, and to disfranchise honest voters.

2. They also implicitly acknowledge that Republicans are the better people, the better citizens, the better Americans, because in order for the Dems cheating to work, the Republicans have to not respond in kind, with their own voter fraud. And they know we don't/won't.

Legal 'arguments' about angels and pins serve only to obfuscate those two basic points.

Bob Kennedy to family: "Why hasn't Daley released the Cook County totals yet!"

Family: "Because he doesn't know what they need to be. Shut up and calm down."

And it is ever thus.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... For a taste, here it is in reverse: Anyone who feels the need to disenfranchise poor voters to "fix" nonexistant voter fraud must either be naive or a racist..."

Well this only works if you assume all poor people don't drive, go to the bank, rent a movie, buy alcohol, prescription medicine, or any of the myriad daily transactions that require an ID.

I still marvel that liberals believe that the most basic form of identification used in this country is unobtainable by the 'poor' and minorities. Seriously, what world do they live in?

Roux said...

In 1996 Mary Landrieu stole the Senate election in Louisiana. She's now senator for life.

Many precincts in New Orleans had over 100% turnout and Mary won New Orleans by 100,000 votes but only won the state by 10,000. After that Louisiana reformed it's laws and you have to show some form of ID to vote. It includes a voter registration card but most people just use their LA drivers license or the free LA State issued ID.

It has kept our elections fairly honest since then.

It is dumb not to require some sort of ID to vote. It invites fraud. The judge has his head up his ass.

SGT Ted said...

I still marvel that liberals believe that the most basic form of identification used in this country is unobtainable by the 'poor' and minorities. Seriously, what world do they live in?

A world where they need vote fraud to win close elections is where they live. SO, they lie about it.

Add the contempt they really feel for the people they claim to want to help and thats what you get. You can tell the contempt by how they treat poor people who disagree with them or don't stay on the DNC Plantation and Work Farm.

machine said...

Can we at least stop pretending voter ID laws were enacted to prevent voter fraud?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Chase at 11:39 provides an eloquent stream-of-consciousness explanation of what is at the root of this 'argument'.

If you understand that, you can move on to more pressing matters and not get dragged down by the distractive verbiage offered by your run-of-the-mill propagandist.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...
For example, the oft-cited voter fraud is ACORN.

Note that the Photo ID law would have zero effect on every type of fraud that ACORN was caught doing


Um, huh?

Why do you think ACORN registers people to vote fraudulently?


Kevin L. Clancy of Milwaukee pleaded guilty last week to participating “in a scheme to submit fraudulent voter registration applications,” according to Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. Clancy admitted to filing multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals and registering himself and other voter registration canvassers to vote multiple times while working on an ACORN voter drive.

Clancy received a 10-month prison term for his crime. Clancy’s sentence will begin when he completes another sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.

“The integrity of elections is dependent upon citizens and officials insisting they be conducted lawfully,” Van Hollen said. “Wisconsin’s citizens should not have to wonder whether their vote has been negated or diminished by illegally cast ballots.”


Oh, so people who are not who they say they are can vote.

That's why.

I'm a borderline persona non grata among the commentors here by being so liberal and PC all the time

No, it is because you're an idiot and a liar.

machine said...

"...a majority of Republicans constrained from lying because of their esteem of the value of the moral virtue honesty"

Thanks for the morning laffs....from the party whose eventual nominee (Mitt) is nationally known as a serial liar...

Jay said...

Remember garbage, voter fraud is "non-existent"!!!

A former Wisconsin resident now living in Florida made her initial court appearance here this week on election fraud charges from 2009.

Yadira Colón, 44, is accused of forging signatures on nomination papers for Pedro Colón, then a Democratic member of the Assembly from Milwaukee, and now a circuit judge. The two are not related.

Yadira Colón is also charged with registering to vote in Milwaukee in 2008, by listing an address in the city when she in fact resided in Oshkosh at the time. She then cast an absentee ballot in Milwaukee, according to prosecutors.

Matthew said...

"1) You can be a registered voter and not be allowed to vote under the PHOTO ID law. That should make the difference clear enough."

-- Does this mean we should have government workers comb through office buildings and the like to find people who can't vote because they could not make it?

You can be a registered voter and not be allowed to vote because you did not fill out your absentee ballot correctly.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

For a taste, here it is in reverse: Anyone who feels the need to disenfranchise poor voters to "fix" nonexistant voter fraud must either be naive or a racist.


I love this.

Really, it speaks volumes about your contact with the real world.

By the way, are you suggesting poor black people don't drive?

I realize that Wisconsin is full of crackers like you, but is that what you really think?

Jay said...

How could ID have stopped this?


MILWAUKEE -- The organizer of Occupy Milwaukee is calling his recent arrest and allegations of voter fraud "distractions."

Austin Thompson was handcuffed and taken away by police more than a week ago after the group purposely made a spectacle outside M&I Bank. Allegations of voter fraud later surfaced after a complaint stated that Thompson used an extended stay hotel as his address to vote in the spring elections, and he really lives in Georgia.


Gee, I wonder???

Writ Small said...

I caught Morning Joe about a week ago and they had a Democrat arguing against voter ID laws saying they were inherently racist. Scarborough reacted with extreme incredulity. None of the other liberals on his panel joined in, but their silence was telling.

If you can't convince a squishy conservative like Joe S. to even entertain that voter ID laws are dangerous, you've got some work to do. Liberal judges are your best bet.

Matthew said...

"Actually it has been shown to violate the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. That said, I can't vouch for the confederacy though. They more than likely do things "differently"."

Was that the same decision that quoted the esteemed supreme court justice William Scalia? And that referred to the wrong section of the constitution it was claiming the act violated?

If so, I might not count any pre-hatched chickens quite yet.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/flanagan-earlier-signed-walker-recall-petition-oa4febu-141695303.html

Curious George said...

The day liberals look to eliminate the requirement of ID for all the activities that require it, then I'll believe their bullshit. But apparently they believe these poor "disfranchised" residents of the state should be able to vote, but not drive, attend a WI college or school, drink, smoke, get public aid of any sort, take out a book at the library, rent a home, buy a home, fly in plane, open a bank account...

By the way, two cases of "disfranchisement" have been made public. In both cases the person had the ability to get an ID, but chose not to. Wait, that's not quite correct. In one case the person actually had a fucking drivers license, but refused to produce it.

The judges ruling is inane. Requiring photo ID is not creating a class of suffrage like convicted felons. If you are a convicted felon, nothing will change that. It is inherent. Having a photo ID (or not) is a condition, and one that can be changed by the elector.

Matthew said...

"OK, what if my dog shows up with a sticky note on his forehead ... On what basis can she be refused."

Ah. The Air Bud Clause.

Renee said...

Not sure about other states, but you can register to vote/update address at the RMV the same time the update their license/state I.D. in mine.

Also most towns/cities update records with an annual census, flagging those who do not respond or noting the recently deceased.

It is those who are more unstable with housing/transient almost that risk the inability to vote.

People bring up race, but not the rights of homeless?

MadisonMan said...

If the student wants to vote in WI, that student should officially change residency to vote in WI with the WI ID. He or she would save money too, by changing residency the student can now pay in-state tuition rates instead of out-of-state.

Not in Wisconsin. If you come to Wisconsin to go to school, changing your residency does not change your tuition rates. When I was in grad school, a guy moved here with his wife and kid, bought a house, and she got a full-time job doing something. He paid out-of-state tuition.

After a semester -- maybe less -- he did get onto a grant with a Research Assistantship, and the out-of-state tuition portion was paid by the grant.

dbp said...

"To agree with the judge, I think you need to see a person without an ID as a type of person who is being excluded from the right to vote (and not within one of those 2 categories, so not within the legislature's power to exclude). "

I suppose if you are not lucky enough to be born with an ID you are just SOL. It is certainly unreasonable to expect a citizen to go out and somehow gain an ID.

Jay said...

machine said...
Can we at least stop pretending voter ID laws were enacted to prevent voter fraud?


Can we stop pretending you're serious or sane?

Jay said...

By the way, how do you register to vote in WI?

Do you need an ID?

Or do you just walk up and say "I'm Joe Blow and here is my address"?

Bru said...

Indiana's voter id. law was challenged under a similar provision in the Indiana State Constitution (in a separate case from the one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court). The Indiana Supreme Court held that the voter identification requirement was regulatory in nature and did not substantively change who was eligible to vote.

A copy of that decision is available here: http://media.courierpress.com/media/static/06301001bd.pdf

Rusty said...

Actually. If you think about it, the poor have a lot of ID. If you're on food stamps, section eight housing, ADC, medicaid,SSI, all things that require that you have ID.

So what would be the motivation to allow people not to identify themselves when they go to vote.

Renee said...

@Jay

yes

I get asked street, number, then name. They check off my name in their records. All registered voters are listed.

Haven't you ever voted?

Renee said...

Rusty, but not stable. Many poor do not get benefits, simply for not having a fix address one loses the right to vote.

Joe Schmoe said...

I'm a borderline persona non grata among the commentors here by being so liberal and PC all the time

You neglected to mention how everyone is jealous of your wit, charm, and debonair.

More like persona non reada to me. I know you fancy yourself as some sort of Renaissance man, but I'm not seeing it. But that's just my opinion. Post away. I'm not into censorship. You'll sink or swim on your own merits. If I see you've tried to be a one-man kill shot on the gushing oil well of an Althouse thread, I'll go read other threads.

Jay said...

Renee,

I'm asking how you get REGISTERED to vote in WI.

Is it same day registration?

MadisonMan said...

@renee, I think he's asking how you initially vote. It's so long ago that all I remember is that I went to the wrong precinct. (What can I say -- I went to the closest one to my house, but that wasn't where I was supposed to go). I think I showed them my MG&E bill, told them I was a new voter, I filled out a form, and that was that.

MadisonMan said...

Jay, I don't know how it works now, however. Things may have changed in the past 17 or 18 years :)

Renee said...

My apologies.

Phil 3:14 said...

I dislike laws that are a solution seeking a problem but such an argument is exceedingly disingenuous coming from a liberal (not to mention the outrage over the "racist" belief that everyone should be able to officially identify themselves)

damikesc said...

In 1996 Mary Landrieu stole the Senate election in Louisiana. She's now senator for life.

Heck, LBJ's career was made by stealing his first major election.

And that it was stolen is not even a debatable point. It was rather blatant.

There is literally no rational argument against photo ID requirements to vote. None.

damikesc said...

See? It goes no where. Why not just have a policy debate on A) Whether there is voter fraud B) Whether Photo IDs would meaningful prevent it and C) whether voters would be disenfranchised in some meaningful sense.

A) Absolutely. If there was not, nobody would oppose requiring a photo ID. That one side vigorously opposes it shows that it definitely exists and benefits them.

B) Absolutely. The dead vote regularly for a reason. We can't fix vote counting fraud (another Democrat staple), but we can limit the damage of random morons voting repeatedly in different locations.

C) Absolutely not. Anybody can get the ID. If you refuse to do so, well, you can only blame yourself.

Feel free to explain how proving ID wouldn't eliminate the risk of voter fraud and how requiring photo ID disenfranchises anybody i everybody has ready access to it.

How can you rationally oppose making somebody prove they are who they say they are before voting?

Prove voter fraud

Prove something you're working so hard to avoid any evidence of it occurring? Rational plan there.

george said...

It is kind of funny. We can't know if voter fraud of a certain sort is occurring if people aren't required to show ID when they vote. Then this lack of proof of that type of fraud is used to justify not requiring ID. That is how silly things have gotten.

We know every other sort of fraud up to that point is occurring as it is being prosecuted right now in jurisdictions all over the United States. But somehow we are asked to believe that the last step of the process is pristine and unsullied by fraud. This is a disingenuous argument at best.

We also know that some sorts of election tampering are officially approved of by our Justice Department and president. If you are a member of a black supremacist group for instance then you are allowed to carry a pipe and threaten white people outside polling places. This is now the official policy of the US government and the critical race theory proponents who staff its highest ranks. They have made it clear that they are not there to protect white people and have said as much.

Anyway, the WI law has classes of people who are to be excluded from elections. This is not in dispute. Once you create such classes you must then logically have a means of excluding those people at the polling place. For example, how would you tell the typical WI teacher from a mentally handicapped person or the local union members from felons? As you can see that would not be an easy task. The only effective means of doing so is to require an ID of some sort and obviously a photo ID is better for such purposes than the other sort. So the WI law can be said to not just allow, but rather require, an identification process. If you have such a process that is better than a photo ID I guess we could discuss it but I am not sure what it would be.

Now if you want to argue that the method of separating the classes itself creates a class then you are essentially arguing that there can be no classes of any sort as that would be the inevitable practical effect of eliminating the culling process.

purplepenquin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

I keep seeing these long lists of stuff that everyone "needs" a Official Gov't ID in order to accomplish (for both interactions with the gov't as well as private business transactions) and I can't help but wonder: Why even bother with a paper card anymore?

Perhaps we should have every citizen embedded with a electronic chip that can be used as an official ID. Simply scan your wrist and there is no question at all of who you are.

It would be easier, more cost effective, and less prone to abuse and counterfeiting...so why not?

Ms.Oopenheimer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ms.Oopenheimer said...

We all know that it's RACISSSSSSSST! to require citizenship to vote.

Oops, I meant to say ID there.

"Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser."

I sure hope Patton was right.

3/13/12 11:13 PM
---------------------------------------

I'm curious, how would showing an ID prove someone wasn't a citizen? The accepted ID is a drivers license. Non citizens have legitimate drivers licenses. I have a male relative, a non citizen, he's Austrian, who has been voting for 40 plus years, Republican in all elections, local and Federal. He has a legitimate drivers license, he plans to continue voting, should I report him?

He's a nice guy, I wouldn't want him to get deported or anything.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yes you should report that your friend is breaking Federal law.

Unless of course you don't care about illegal voting.

Alex said...

So apparently I'm supposed to believe that 100K poor Wisconsinites have no form of ID. Really?

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

I'm going to call him today and warn him to cease and desist from voting henceforth!

He will be very angry as he has told me many times how he plans on voting for Santorum, he was so proud to have cast votes for Bush twice! He listens to Limbaugh daily and can't understand why I don't appreciate Limbaugh's genius.

Ah well, what a let down for my poor Austrian relative, he was so looking forward to casting a vote against Obama.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Good for you. Illegal voting is never acceptable.

Matthew said...

So, now that we have a confirmed case of voter fraud, can we stop pretending it never happens and look for ways to stop it?

Thank you, Oopenheimer for putting the final nail in that coffin.

mdgiles said...

Okay. This beginning to drive me crazy. How can the Democrats be in favor of "Motor Voter" laws, where you are registered to vote when you get or renew your license; but against ID laws, when in fact you receive a Photo ID - your driver's license - at the same place at which you register. It's simply insane.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Never said there wasn't any voter fraud, the question is how prevalent is it? Is it worth the cost to implement a voter ID law?

My relative didn't take the news well, he isn't speaking to me now. How many Austrians are out there voting illegally, gawd, could be in the hundreds of thousands!

Tom Spaulding said...

How can the Democrats be in favor of "Motor Voter" laws, where you are registered to vote when you get or renew your license; but against ID laws,

Because being registered gets your name on the rolls, to be used when and if needed to swing an election. Repeat when necessary.

They need names on the rolls in order to vote multiple times, which is why they are FOR registration ID to register, but AGAINST showing ID to vote.

AJ Lynch said...

I have a niece who has not lived in PA for ten years yet she still votes absentee in PA for PREZ elections because she knows her DEM vote is more meaningful in PA vs NY [where she actually lives and works].

Matthew said...

"Never said there wasn't any voter fraud, the question is how prevalent is it? Is it worth the cost to implement a voter ID law?"

-- Where is the cost to have people pull their ID out and present it? People already need IDs, the state already makes them. The additional cost is minimal to nonexistent.

Tom Spaulding said...

My relative didn't take the news well, he isn't speaking to me now.

How can you tell? Do you speak Austrian?

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Tom Spaulding, why yes, yes I'd do! German with the Austrian dialect, that is.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Steven (3:36 a.m. -- dude, what are you doing up that late?) nails it. ID requirements don't seem to change turnout much -- which means that (a) there's not much fraud in in-person voting; and (b) there's not much hardship in requiring ID.

I'd require it anyway, not least for symbolic purposes. You need photo ID to so many things in this country that it's absurd that the franchise (which I trust everyone realizes is a bit more important than buying beer or renting videos -- if anyone actually does that any more -- or cashing checks, &c.) is exempt from the general "prove you are who you say you are" requirement.

wv: verignse etateres. Do I just happen to get the exceptionally twisted ones, or is Captcha out to get me?

WineSlob said...

Our Constitution in Article Three
Clearly REQUIRES I.D.
Section Two Has No Meaning
Without I.D. Screening
Alleged Residents, Registrants and Absentees.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Allie demonstrates perfectly the difference between those on the left and those on the right. It isn't a question of one's ideology. His vote is illegal and should not count. I don't care how Republican he votes. Any other conclusion undermines the entire process.

How do you feel about him canceling out a legally cast vote? Maybe he is even canceling out your vote. Or do you comfort yourself with the thought that voter fraud on the other side will overcome the difference?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

mdgiles,

Okay. This beginning to drive me crazy. How can the Democrats be in favor of "Motor Voter" laws, where you are registered to vote when you get or renew your license; but against ID laws, when in fact you receive a Photo ID - your driver's license - at the same place at which you register. It's simply insane.

No, it's not. "Motor Voter" ensures that people who are obtaining one form of photo ID are encouraged to register to vote. (Indeed, a lot of people who are not eligible to vote at all have ended up on the voter rolls this way.) But there are people who actually don't have driver's licenses, and haven't ever stepped foot inside a DMV.

wv: gotlys nkinivis. That could almost be a stage name.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Bushman, no I certainly do not think his vote should count.

I never knew he wasn't a citizen until just recently, when I did find out after a particularly heated debate over politics, I told him he was voting illegally, he claimed he was allowed to vote as he had a legitimate drivers liscence,lol.

Maybe he got confused with something he thought Limbaugh said. BTW he is fluent in English.

Tarzan said...

Perhaps we should have every citizen embedded with a electronic chip that can be used as an official ID. Simply scan your wrist and there is no question at all of who you are.

Isn't this tactic called 'reducto ad absurdum' or some such? Is this from the Alinsky playbook, or just innocent discussion?

Just curious.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Curious George,

The day liberals look to eliminate the requirement of ID for all the activities that require it, then I'll believe their bullshit. But apparently they believe these poor "disfranchised" residents of the state should be able to vote, but not drive, attend a WI college or school, drink, smoke, get public aid of any sort, take out a book at the library, rent a home, buy a home, fly in plane, open a bank account..

I think you left out a couple. Like "Get a job in any legit business." And "Buy Sudafed." (Or prescription meds of any kind. Or, indeed, get on any health care plan whatsoever.)

wv: untoZe Carst. Damn do I get the weird ones.

Michael McNeil said...

Tom Spaulding, why yes, yes I'd do! German with the Austrian dialect, that is.

As the saying goes, “a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy” (see, e.g., Portuguese, which is basically the same thing as the Spanish dialect of Galician but has an army and a navy — or Cantonese, which is radically different from Mandarin, but has no army or navy), so from that point of view “Austrian” is a language! Oops, Austria has no coastline these days…. Would patrol boats on the Danube count?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Thanks for the clarification Allie. If he is that interested in voting here he should pursue legal citizenship. He's apparently had 40 plus years to do so. Since he hasn't taken this step, I have no compassion for him. In short, I would rather protect your vote that allow someone sympathetic to my own views to vote illegally.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

I'm still waiting to hear how showing a drivers liscence or other accepted ID will prove the voter is a citizen? No one has answered that yet. So I will, it CAN'T. So non citizens will continue to vote.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Bushman, me too, I don't understand why he didn't become a citizen, for being as much of a Tea Party blowhard as he is, that was a shock to me to say the least. He still isn't pursuing his citizenship, I don't get it, he isn't all that stupid.

Matthew said...

"I'm still waiting to hear how showing a drivers liscence or other accepted ID will prove the voter is a citizen? No one has answered that yet. So I will, it CAN'T. So non citizens will continue to vote."

-- In many states, the documents needed to get a driver's license include things that prove citizenship, whereas there are different licenses for non-citizens.

Non-citizens will only continue to vote so long as we do not have a standard documentation requirement to get an ID card. Which is, ironically, an area the federal government can actually flex some muscle in without too much constitutional fussing.

Dante said...

Ooopenheimer says:
"I don't see how an ID proves citizenship."

See, you are right in the mathematical sense. An ID does not prove citizenship. But it's a lot more likely that a person with an ID is a citizen.

But your posting here doesn't prove you can think either. It could be you are a computer program, or an ape that got lucky. Who knows, it's all possible.

See, the question you SHOULD be asking, is does having ID decrease voter fraud or not. While I have no Proof, the answer seems pretty clear. Yes, it will.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Dante, guesses are not an acceptable criteria to change state law. PROOF is needed, we're not playing guessing games with the state constitution.

You didn't put too much thought into that did you?

Matthew said...

"Dante, guesses are not an acceptable criteria to change state law. PROOF is needed, we're not playing guessing games with the state constitution."

-- What docs are needed to get a state ID? Do they prove citizenship? Maybe they do?

Would you be in favor of increasing the requirements to get a state ID/license to require proof of citizenship? That would meet your concern, increase the effectiveness of the law AND help prevent not just voter fraud but would increase the barrier to identity fraud.

Win-win. So, clearly you support this compromise, right?

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Matthew yes I would, that is where I break away from my fellow liberals. There should be a Federal ID that proves citizenship given at birth or naturalization. This ID should be a requirement to vote to collect SS, etc,etc.

I do however think that the road to citizenship should be made available to illegal immigrants after they have been here for a certain number of years and paid a fine. Those with criminal records should be deported.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Showing an ID at the polls proves you are the person on the voter rolls.

I'm not sure why this very simple act causes so much outrage among liberals? Do you get this indignant when you purchase alcohol, board a plane, cash a check?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't think illegal aliens should be given a fast track to citizenship because they were successful in going a long time in breaking the law undetected.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Hoosier Daddy, but what if the person on the voter roles isn't a citizen, why are you ignoring this? So as long as he is the voter on the rolls, proven by an ID, then it's OK to vote illegally?

Matthew said...

If the road to citizenship delays someone who is legally trying to enter the country by a minute, then it is wrong. If it diverts resources from helping refugees, those seeking asylum or legal immigrants, then it is wrong.

Once we have enough resources to help everyone legally trying to get here, then we can work on some manner of reaching a mid-ground with those who are here illegally.

Matthew said...

Properly maintained voter rolls are supposed to be cleaned of the dead, those who moved and those not eligible to vote. We're just sloppy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If the person on the rolls is not a citizen then there is a bigger problem. Considering there is an estimated 10-15 million illegal aliens in this country, that should be cause for alarm. Then again liberals seem to fight tooth and nail over any efforts to enforce our immigration laws.

I would say your Austrian relative broke quite a few laws to become a registered voter. Deportation might be the more attractive route than prison.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

He had a green card, had legal staus to get a drivers liscence. In order to register to vote in Wisconsin you need a valid ID, which he had. He was on the voter rolls.

Rabel said...

Oopenheimer,

Your Austrian friend has committed multiple felonies by fradulently registering to vote and voting illegally.

He will have to commit another felony by falsifying his N-400 naturalization form if he wants to become a U.S. citizen.

That may be a reason he has not applied.

damikesc said...

Ah well, what a let down for my poor Austrian relative, he was so looking forward to casting a vote against Obama.

Hoping situational ethics works as a cudgel to attack with?

Doesn't matter who he votes for --- your relative should not be voting. Period.

When he becomes a citizen, then he can feel free.

I'm still waiting to hear how showing a drivers liscence or other accepted ID will prove the voter is a citizen?

Registration proves you're a citizen.

ID proves that you are you.

Really, is that a difficult concept?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Including immigration status on the driver's license would seem to be a common sense approach. That must be why it isn't done. Anyway, if Wisconsin Democrats had their way, we would be issuing licenses to illegal immigrants.

Rabel said...

Question 9 on the Wisconsin voter registration form requires the applicant to swear that he is a U.S. citizen.

Falsification of the form is a Class 1 felony punishable in Wisconsin by imprisonment of up to 3.5 years.

You might want to give him a heads-up to keep his head down.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Dami, what are you missing here, how much clearer can I make it? He registered to vote with a drivers liscence, that he obtained legally. He had legal staus and had a green card. Yes when he registered to vote he broke a law, when he voted numerous times over 40 years he continued to break laws.

My point is that he was able to register to vote, period. no one asked for proof of citizenship, that is why we need a Federal ID to prove citizenship. Simply thinking that showing an Id proves citizenship is ignoring he reality of what m relative did.

Get it?

So voter ID laws are useless, unless proof of citizenship is required at the time of registration.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

Rabel, I sure will. I feel sorry for the old coot, he is unwell now and all stressed out he will no longer be able to vote, pity. I don't want to give him another hear attack by telling him he is a Felon.

I wonder if he will get kicked out of his local Tea Party group?!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I have zero problem proving citizenship to register to vote. I also support proving proof of legal residence in the US but the current adminstration disagrees.

Ms.Oopenheimer said...

And guess what the political argument my relative and I were having was over, when he let it slip he wasn't a citizen? Voter ID Laws, LMAO!

Rusty said...

Renee said...
Rusty, but not stable. Many poor do not get benefits, simply for not having a fix address one loses the right to vote



Show me.
In the city of Chicago homeless people routinely vote.
ACORN goes all over Lower Wacker Drive in search of homeless to register. Local ward healers charter school buses to take them to the polls.
The homeless also have state IDs so they can get benefits.

Many Poor do not get benefits doesn't wash.

kimsch said...

AJ: I don't see a problem with her absentee voting in PA while living in NY as long as she isn't voting in person in NY as well.

In the military families vote in their home of record, no matter where they are currently living and no matter if they've purchased a house. Of course, the military member and family can change their home of record if they wish. But the military family can't vote absentee in the home of record and in person wherever they happen to be stationed. Many military families carry drivers' licenses that are years out of date and expired. As military and family members those licenses are valid for driving purposes with their military ID.

I have to show my ID to buy Sudafed here in Illinois but it's not required when I go vote. I usually show mine anyway because my last name is German and 12 letters long. It's easier for both me and the poll worker to have it in printed form rather than spelling it out verbally.

cubanbob said...

Ms Oops argument is that since photo ID laws cannot guarantee that no illegal votes will be cast those laws are useless. Using her logic, murder laws ought to be repealed since those laws cannot guarantee there won't be any murders.

However she does have a point about requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote, but would she extend that to all federal entitlements?

Rusty said...

OK.
So to register to vote you have to show your birth certificate, or proof you were born here.
No problamo. Can Do.

It's been many years but if I recall I used my draft card as ID to register to vote because I hadn't learned to drive yet. I had to go down to city hall. They knew me and my whole family, but still required an ID. To register for the draft I needed my birth certificate. Also at city hall.

Eric said...

But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression.

Absolutely. But what's also true is voter fraud is no less poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Illegal voters cancel out the votes of legal voters.

Crunchy Frog said...

You can be a registered voter and not be allowed to vote because you did not fill out your absentee ballot correctly.

If you're too stupid to vote, then... you're too stupid to vote.

BarrySanders20 said...

No consitiutional right is absolute. Even the "first freedoms" have accepted limitations, restrictions, and are subject to reasonable regulation. Speech has time, place, and manner restrictions, for example.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially the liberal bloc, has a long and proud history of tying up constituional rights in state regulations. One example is its approval of "reasonable regulation" of guns in light of Article 1 Sec. 26: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose." Shirley and her gang used the lowest-level of scrutiny and said that laws restricting and regulating this consititutional right need only be a "reasonable exercise of police power." State v. Cole.

I think it is a proper exercise of the police power to establish minimum safeguards to ensure legitimate elections. And yet, when convenient, certain judges will ignore reasonable regulation of rights and take an absolutist approach if the ends justify the means.

damikesc said...

Dami, what are you missing here, how much clearer can I make it? He registered to vote with a drivers liscence, that he obtained legally. He had legal staus and had a green card. Yes when he registered to vote he broke a law, when he voted numerous times over 40 years he continued to break laws.

Keep in mind, I have long advocated wiping the voter rolls out COMPLETELY every 4 years and making everybody re-register.

And that registration shouldn't be as easy as completing a form.

Noting that registration is ripe with fraud due to people lying isn't a reason to just assume they'll be more honest with their ID if nobody asks for it.

My point is that he was able to register to vote, period.

If you commit fraud, you have an ability to do a lot of things.

Legally? No.

But, hey, if I have a big enough rock, I have the ability to go into your home and take all of your things.

Ergo, we should forego property rights. Right?

Simply thinking that showing an Id proves citizenship is ignoring he reality of what m relative did.

I must ask whose posts you are reading since, CLEARLY, they aren't ones on this board.

Photo ID proves you are who you say you are. Nothing more. Nobody has made claims beyond that.

So voter ID laws are useless, unless proof of citizenship is required at the time of registration.

Do you suspect I would OPPOSE that? Heck no. Make registration rigorous.

Blue@9 said...

If the liberals succeed in killing Voter ID laws around the country, will conservatives challenge gun control regulations on the same bases?

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment requiring ID checks or waiting periods.

Steve Koch said...

Dose of Sanity,

Thanks for self identifying as a corrupt, cynical, dem hacktivist. Not much point in debating hacktivists so it is really great when they self identify. No point in being polite with a dem hacktivist and no reason to expect a dem hacktivist to depart from dnc talking points.

BTW, arguing that voters should not provide a photo ID when they vote is not going to persuade anybody who isn't a corrupt dem hacktivist so please double down on that approach.

Greg said...

My plan for preventing voter fraud, for those who just don't want to require voters show IDs:

Each voting location has a thumb print scanner and a webcam. A person who cannot show ID puts his or her thumb on the scanner, looks into the webcam, and says "I swear/affirm, under penalty of perjury and voter fraud under (statute number), that I am (name), of (residence, city), and that I am a registered voter and legally allowed to vote in this jurisdiction." The scan and video is uploaded simultaneously to a secure server and a public server.

Within four hours (and I'm being conservative there), YouTube would be filled with embarrassing videos of anyone trying to vote illegally. Picture the same person shown claiming to be six different people, with time-stamped videos arranged in sequence, and an animation showing them moving from precinct to precinct. Or picture a series of pictures of people voting under a name, side by side with that name's obituary. The secure server will confirm the crowdsourced documentation of voter fraud.

It won't fix absentee ballot fraud or fraud committed by those counting the votes, but it would stop a particularly easy form of voter fraud, voting in the name of the dead or no longer resident.