March 28, 2012

Wisconsin Voter ID case goes straight to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports:
Appeals courts sent two lawsuits challenging Wisconsin's blocked new voter ID law directly to the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, determining it was imperative to resolve the cases quickly given the slate of important upcoming elections, including the state's presidential primaries next week.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take the cases, it could reinstate the state's new requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls just days before Tuesday's election. However, attorneys challenging the law said it is unlikely a decision would come that quickly.
A decision before next Tuesday's primaries? Assuming a majority of the court will uphold the new law, I find it hard to believe the minority won't at least have some power to slow the case down. But, on the other hand, you have a trial court enjoining an important new state law, interfering with an impending election, why should that be allowed to happen, if the law is, in fact, valid? 

24 comments:

damikesc said...

I wonder if the NYT has an opinion on this case? I bet they oppose valid photo ID, but they seem so anxious to have courts defer to legislatures.

I still don't get the arguments against photo ID. Delaying a measure to combat fraud hardly seems like a noble pursuit.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I still don't get the arguments against photo ID."

I don't either. Hell they've institued more stringent ID measures to sit for the SAT.

traditionalguy said...

Practice Tip: When the law is on the other's side, then the Court's Procedures are still on your side for a while. How long is the question.

Prosser hands are probably already raised to neck level ready to choke the lower court's injunction.

edutcher said...

It's all about giving ACORN and SEIU one last election.

And fairness is always defined by the Lefties.

James Pawlak said...

A long time ago (1956-59) I invested three three years of my life in, among other things, defending the weight-and-sanctity of my vote through service in the US Navy. That was in one of the then three most dangerous specialties in that service (A part of my duties involved sitting, for hours, much too close to a radiation leaking A-bomb.)

When one illegal immigrant or sentence-serving-felon or Chicago (Obama's real political base and model) "vote early and vote often" critter casts an illegal ballot I am much more than offended.

garage mahal said...

why should that be allowed to happen, if the law is, in fact, valid?

As if Gableman & Hacks say something is valid, that it is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't either. Hell they've institued more stringent ID measures to sit for the SAT.

And to sit for the Series 7 exam (to be a stock broker FYI) the Series 65 (to have your own financial advisory firm), to take the Notary Exam. Plus fingerprints and an FBI background check.

In addition,you have to be fingerprinted and have the same FBI Federal background check just to get a contractor's license in the State of California.

Hell....I'm more qualified and more "vetted" to be President than Obama is.

Matthew said...

"Why should that be allowed to happen, if the law is, in fact, valid?"

-- Pay, then litigate, is how tax law works. I think "Vote, then litigate," doesn't work nearly as well, though.

What if the law is found non-valid, people would have been denied a chance to vote without IDs. If the law is found valid, all you have is people -may- have voted without presenting an ID. Most courts, I think, would prefer to accept the risk of potential harm over the risk of definitive harm.

Matthew said...

At least, that's what I was told about tax law. Who knows if it is true.

damikesc said...

I don't either. Hell they've institued more stringent ID measures to sit for the SAT.

They have more stringent ID measures to talk to politicians about their opposition to ID measures.

damikesc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carnifex said...

Story time...

My grandfather told my great grandfather he wanted to go to college. My great grandfather informed him that when he reached 14 he was going to work in the coal mine like everyone else. My grandfather did not believe him.

On his 14 birthday, my grandfather was awakened at 5 am by my great grandfather. He told him do get dresses, it was time to go to work. My grandfather got to return to his bed after dark.

He lay in bed until everyone was asleep, got up, packed a bag, and left. At age 14, and 1 day.

He ran to Bearrea College. He worked his way through college, on the college farm there, milking cows. At age 14. With no support from anybody.

Anyone who says it's an imposition on them to get an ID to vote can kiss my grandfathers ass.

Scott M said...

Anyone who says it's an imposition on them to get an ID to vote can kiss my grandfathers ass.

Nice story, but horrendously outdated. These days he would be 26 before being forced by his parents to go work in a coal mine.

MayBee said...

Apparently it's easier to navigate the insurance market than get an id, and being prepared to participate in the health care market someday is more vital than participating in society in all the was an id allows.

SGT Ted said...

Hey requiring ID to vote is racist because minorities are too stupid to get them.

Well, thats what the opponents of it are saying.

MayBee said...

Minorities are not too stupid or poor to get insurance and figure out how not to pay the penalty on their tax forms.

machine said...

...hmmm....state gun permits are approved, state university student IDs aren't...

It's not about fraud...

Matthew said...

"..hmmm....state gun permits are approved, state university student IDs aren't...

It's not about fraud..."

-- Do both of those things have the exact same information on them, or are there differences?

damikesc said...

...hmmm....state gun permits are approved, state university student IDs aren't...

It's not about fraud...


The required work to get a state gun permit dwarfs the requirement to get a student ID.

Lance said...

With the Presidential primaries coming up, that's a lot of added pressure on the WSC to hear the case quickly and pass judgement. Based on past experience, this court does not handle pressure well.

Titus said...

The Wisconsin Supreme Court needs to get a Reality Show.

It was be great fun seeing them in their robes beating each other up and calling each other bitches.

It would be great for them and the country.

Alex said...

Titus - you forgot the chokeholds. Republicans are so violent like that.

Anthony said...

"why should that be allowed to happen, if the law is, in fact, valid? "

Unless the State can show that the new voter ID requirement is urgently needed to remedy a significant violation of someone's rights, granting an injunction which lasts through the upcoming election is merely preserving the status quo ante, and likely will not significantly implicate anyone's right to vote.

brian7 said...

Do you need some info on a medicare billing? Then doing research on the internet should help you out. Good luck!