Presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explained the request by citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that said redistricting is best left up to the lawmakers, not judges.It was at that point that the Republicans grounded their position on state law. I doubt if they want to move the lines, but you can see why it's an appealing argument to say the state constitution doesn't permit it.
Attorney Daniel Kelly said a 1954 ruling by the state Supreme Court established that new voter maps can be drawn only once every 10 years, to avert a never-ending stream of calls for fresh changes.Now, you've got a disputed question of state law, which the federal panel could attempt to resolve, except it's not part of resolving the legal questions presented in the case, it has to do with the panel's effort to push the parties into settlement, which, it seems, the panel suggested because of the weakness of the federal claim.
An attorney for the plaintiffs disagreed. State law only requires that new voter maps be completed in the first legislative session, attorney Douglas Poland said, and this first legislative session hasn't ended.
What is that federal claim? It seems to be about legislative secrecy: the public didn't get enough information about what was going on in the legislature.
Bills to redraw voting boundaries for state legislative districts, congressional districts and municipalities -- allegedly in ways skewed to benefit Republicans -- were introduced last July 11. The bills promptly passed the GOP-controlled Legislature and were signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker.I haven't been following the lawsuit, but, just looking at the report this morning, I do not understand what the federal claim is supposed to be. Why is this case going to trial? It sounds like a purely political dispute, and perhaps the 3-judge panel got cold feet yesterday, when the trial was supposed to begin.
Republicans in the Legislature produced completed maps before inviting any public comment. And now it's emerged that GOP lawmakers signed secrecy agreements regarding the process, stirring fresh controversy and potential legal challenges.
"The state redistricting map is rotten and the process by which it passed is rotten," said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, a Latino advocacy group whose federal lawsuit challenging the maps brought the secrecy pacts to light. The Legislature, she said at a Feb. 8 press conference, "willfully shut out any public opinion."
Posts
74 comments:
"Bills to redraw voting boundaries for state legislative districts, congressional districts and municipalities -- allegedly in ways skewed to benefit Republicans -- were introduced last July 11."
Remember when 'I won' was a carte blanche for executive and legislative over reach?
You mean federal judges don't have the authority to resolve everything? Isn't that unconstitutional?
Yet another story of Democrats thinking that the 2010 election should not count because they didn't win.
Of course the Democrats never blame themselves for governing in such a way that they got their collective butt handed to them in 2010, which gave all the redistricting fun to the side that won. Want a friendlier map? .... try winning some elections.
Both Republicans and Democrats do this.
Win the office of the Governor and control of your legislature for the term that writes the maps, pay proper respects to the Voting Rights Act, and build in your partisan advantage for the next ten years.
Democrats lost, so now their whining to the federal judiciary...
Shocking, not. Such pussies.
You've missed a lot of the interesting parts if you're just tuning in now.
I have no idea how strong their case is, but anytime lawyers are fined for not co-operating and opinions read more like smack-downs I find legal opinion a little more enjoyable to read.
Read the opinion associated with the $17k fine to MBF/McLeod.
To add ... there is some irony that Jim Troupis has been the lawyer for the last 3 WI redistrictings by the WI GOP.
The past two got fixed by the court, but yet back they go to Troupis.
What's that old saying about `fool me once ...'?
Pretty rich that all of a sudden, they are compelled to abide by state law and the constitution.
This is funny. Smile! That's Lt Governor Kleefisch's husband, who made his mark in this session by introducing a bill to open a hunting season on sandhill cranes.
You're missing out if you are not following this case. The repeated smackdowns of the Repblicans and their attorneys provide exceptional reading. In a nutshell, the federal courts have been asked to intervene based on the allegation that the maps have been drawn with a specific goal of disenfranchising certain racial groups. The Republicans required their members to sign secrecy pledges to ensure that they could lie to the public about the basis of the redistricting while still working internally on the actual goals of redistricting. Their lawyers (Michal Best and Jim Troupis) have tried every conceivable way to block the release of emails, memos, etc. One of their most memorable complaints was a motion insisting that the issue be heard by a three judge panel, whereupon the Court directed them to read the top of the decision and order they were whining about, listing all three judges.
The emails that have been released so far are damning. I suspect that the panel's push for settlement has a lot more to do with knowing they are about to rule against the Republicans, and rather than have judicial intervention, they sent a signal that they better get their act together before the court does it for them.
I suspect that the panel's push for settlement has a lot more to do with knowing they are about to rule against the Republicans
Is this the sort of thing a panel of judges really ought to be knowing, when the trial hasn't even started yet?
I think preventing the release of prejudicial information to the media is what lawyers are supposed to do.
Because, I know that we'd all be for it if the people in question were being charged with some plebeian crime like murder that their emails and private lives should not be plastered in such a way to condemn them in public prior to the trial.
Also, remember the executive who has been the least transparent and harshest on whistle blowers, even firing some against the law without repercussion!
If secrecy gets your dander up, I don't think this little dust up over redistricting is where your ire should be aimed.
I'm not even sure what the secrecy pledge was pledging to keep secret.
The article says:
"In other words, the Legislature's GOP leadership passed redistricting maps that were drafted in secret and received almost no public support, financial or otherwise, from any quarter. In this case, it seems, the legislators were motivated by a deeper core principle: self-interest."
Wait -- so it is bad now that outside money did not influence political decisions? The only motivation for Republicans is self-interest, while those providing financial or other support are complete altruists?
Consistency people!
Bu bu but what about ________!!??
As the famous advocate and practitioner of Kritarchy Ahron Barack noted "everything is justiciable". Embrace the suck Cheeseheads.
Garage: In this case, I'm not using a squirrel defense. I'm showing that this is blatant hypocrisy. This isn't a concern by Democrats over transparency and informing the public. If they cared about that, then they'd have behaved in vastly different ways. This is a pure political power play over redistricting. That's fine and politics, but I think no one should grand stand and pretend it is on principle.
Except the principle of gerrymandering. They want it gerrymandered one way, Republicans want it gerrymandered another.
Now, they each have to cloak it in an acceptable veneer for the public. The Democrats have chosen transparency as their virtue to hide their "self-interest." Republicans are choosing the state law.
In a nutshell, the federal courts have been asked to intervene based on the allegation that the maps have been drawn with a specific goal of disenfranchising certain racial groups.
Um, so?
This is a silly allegation by a race-based latino group.
You act like that is a good thing.
I do find -- Citizens United is bad because it allows money into politics... but not letting money influence the redistricting laws is also bad -- to be the most intriguing of hypocrisies brought to light here.
I wonder why they feel it is important that outside groups should spend money to influence redistricting, but not elections.
This is a silly allegation by a race-based latino group.
You have no idea what their complaint even is. You seen "latino" and that was enough.
They assert that the lines divide the Latino community, breaking their electoral base of power.
I don't have the map, so I don't know if the new lines make sense, don't make sense, fix previously stupid lines, or not.
But, I think that's the crux of their argument. That their racial community should be in the same district to maximize the impact of their votes.
garage mahal said...
You have no idea what their complaint even is.
Hilarious.
Prove me wrong.
Please.
"In this case, immigrant-rights group Voces de la Frontera claims that the new voting lines separate blocs of Latino voters into different districts, weakening their voting power."
There was an interesting article a few months ago that racial gerry-mandering may have played a part in 2010 and the GOP winning in what should have been several marginal districts, except that instead, D redistricting had consolidated their power base into safe districts, thinking that 2006 would last forever.
So, essentially, instead of making reasonable districts, the awkward lines and shaped districts hurt them in the end, because they could run up the score in a safe district, then lose by a few percentage points in a neighboring district that might have been winnable if they'd drawn the lines differently.
It's an interesting theory, but I don't remember the article, and I don't think I was convinced by the argument. But it was interesting, just to hope for petard hoisting.
Prove me wrong.
You made no point to disprove. As usual.
"...brought by Democrats and Voces de la Frontera (an immigrant rights group..."
No, they are an ILLEGAL immigrant rights group.
"In a nutshell, the federal courts have been asked to intervene based on the allegation that the maps have been drawn with a specific goal of disenfranchising certain racial groups."
So every qualified citizen having the right to vote isn't enough. We must now have guaranteed racially approved outcomes. It's time for the states to challenge the voting rights act. We are a country founded on individual liberties and rights, not group rights.
There's a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a 3-judge panel -- no intermediate court of appeals and no discretion on the part of the Supreme Court.
So there will be supervision over whatever this panel does.
Now, it looks like part of what's going on is using a lawsuit to extract politically useful information, quite aside from the likelihood of winning.
The notion that there is a constitutional right to have your ethnic group collected in one district and not split up, when districting has always been about the majority advancing its political power... I don't see how that can succeed.
This isn't like those cases where the Justice Department leans on southern states pursuant to the Voting Rights Act to produce majority minority districts.
You want the Demos to abide by the law?
Ann, Ann, Ann...
Sorry I've been avoiding figuring this case out and writing about it. Every time I see some writing about it, it seems to be extremely biased against the GOP legislature. The gloating and gleeful accusations are so repulsive (after a year of the Walker era) that I turn away in disgust.
Maybe I should try harder to do my part... whatever that is supposed to be.
I'm starting to notice because of the federal jurisdiction issues. I teach Federal Jurisdiction.
The notion that there is a constitutional right to have your ethnic group collected in one district and not split up, when districting has always been about the majority advancing its political power... I don't see how that can succeed.
There is also an issue with 300,000 Wisconsinites having to wait 6 years to vote in a regular senate election.
"There is also an issue with 300,000 Wisconsinites having to wait 6 years to vote in a regular senate election."
Just have a recall. I hear those happen fairly regularly out there.
"garage mahal said...
There is also an issue with 300,000 Wisconsinites having to wait 6 years to vote in a regular senate election."
Huh?
"Ziegelbauer is a former Democrat who generally votes with Republicans. He said he was glad to be an independent.
"I think you can expect one party to scream like crazy (over redistricting)," he said, "because the other party is doing what they wish they could do.""
I vote this man the only sane man involved in the process.
Yes Matthew, 100 out of 100 times, there is always some sort of good explanation for a Republican. Always. Without fail.
Oh well!
Garage, from above: "Except the principle of gerrymandering. They want it gerrymandered one way, Republicans want it gerrymandered another.
Now, they each have to cloak it in an acceptable veneer for the public. The Democrats have chosen transparency as their virtue to hide their "self-interest." Republicans are choosing the state law."
I am in no ways deluded into thinking that Republicans are not playing hard ball in the redistricting fight. They're playing politics. It's what politicians do. Politics ain't bean bag. That Z guy just seems to get it.
"garage mahal said...
Link"
This is inevitable with our staggered state senate elections. It's happened in the past. Yawn.
This is inevitable with our staggered state senate elections. It's happened in the past. Yawn.
Got a link to that?
And I see the Voter Integrity Brigade has no problem with Rep Kleefisch voting for members not present?
Let me guess:
Matthew " well.....?"
Jay "what about Rev Wright?"
Curious George "Yawn"
"garage mahal said...
This is inevitable with our staggered state senate elections. It's happened in the past. Yawn.
Got a link to that?"
It's in your link Einstein. Did you read it?
"He said the current plan moves a number of voters similar to a plan written by federal judges in the early 1990s."
"The map from the 1990s similarly shifted just under 300,000 voters. The one from the early 2000s moved a smaller group - about 172,000, according to Senate Democrats."
David Canon, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist who has written about redistricting, said displacing voters into districts where they must wait longer to vote for a Senate candidate happens every time new maps are drawn.
"It is an unavoidable consequence of having district lines move around," Canon wrote in an email."
Like I said, yawn.
"And I see the Voter Integrity Brigade has no problem with Rep Kleefisch voting for members not present?"
Actually, in some parliamentary/houses, this is allowed in certain situations. I don't know enough about WI to know if that is the case. Do you have a source that says what was done was not allowed, or is it one of those things that looks bad without the context? Maybe it is bad! I don't know; educate me through non-YouTube links.
"garage mahal said...
And I see the Voter Integrity Brigade has no problem with Rep Kleefisch voting for members not present?
Let me guess:
Matthew " well.....?"
Jay "what about Rev Wright?"
Curious George "Yawn""
Of course none of the above was directed at the Kleefisch deal. Why is your first instinct to lie? Have you always been this way?
It's in your link Einstein. Did you read it?
Of course not. The silly troll is only interested in the headline.
Even though he doesn't even know what the headline means.
Do you have a source that says what was done was not allowed, or is it one of those things that looks bad without the context? Maybe it is bad! I don't know; educate me through non-YouTube links.
Only the members present in the assembly chamber may vote
So that means Kleefisch should have been dragged out of the assembly and arrested, like taking a picture in the gallery? No, I know, different rules for Republicans.
OK. So, since I don't have sound -- what happened in your YouTube link?
Also, courtesy has been extended in the past to vote by phone -- right? So, clearly, people who are not physically there -can- vote. Now, we're quibbling over how they are allowed.
Garage, you are even more flailing and pathetic than usual today.
Under the weather?
"garage mahal said...
Only the members present in the assembly chamber may vote
So that means Kleefisch should have been dragged out of the assembly and arrested, like taking a picture in the gallery? No, I know, different rules for Republicans."
Ah, half the story as usual garage. If you look at all the rules:
"(6) During a roll call vote, any member may raise the point of order that a member appears to be absent from the chamber but is shown as voting according to the roll call display boards. If the presiding officer rules the point of order "well taken", the vote of the absent member may not be recorded."
That didn't happen.
Another person came up to cast that vote also, so clearly they were doing it at the direction of the absent Assembly person. From what I've read, this is not unusual and is done as a courtesy by both sides to accommodate Assembly members. Which is why no Democratic Assembly members invoked rule 6, or have made a stink about it.
Nope, this is about some asshole in the gallery taking some video and trying to manufacturer a scandal. Because they know there are idiots like you that so desperately want it and eat it up.
Again, "yawn".
But by all means email this video and the Assembly rule to your Assembly member, and get back to us with their response.
"President-Mom-Jeans said...
Garage, you are even more flailing and pathetic than usual today.
Under the weather?"
This is what happens when the ship is sinking and Kathleen Falk is your lifeboat.
Garage, you are even more flailing and pathetic than usual today.
Yeah, he is.
It is funny when one of his Republicans are evil "gotchas" is demonstrated to be not really what he says it is, he just moves on to the next.
I still maintain that he dims the lights, lights a few candles, and scrolls through those budget bill protest photos in utter ecstacy...
Another person came up to cast that vote also, so clearly they were doing it at the direction of the absent Assembly person.
If you say so. To me, it was funny knowing every single so-called voter truther would of course immediately defend someone voting for someone else.
This is what happens when the ship is sinking and Kathleen Falk is your lifeboat.
The only thing sinking is Walker's approval rating, judging from the poll that just came out today. You might find this interesting:
The poll also asked about the ongoing grand jury investigation in Milwaukee that has led to charges against former Walker aides. About three-quarters of those polled said they were aware of the investigation. Of those who were aware, 52% agreed that it was “really something serious,” while 40% agreed with the statement that it was “just more politics.”
I'd presume that there are roughly equal numbers of people getting moved from odd to even districts as moving from even to odd districts, so the "disenfranchisement" complaint seems about as valid as usual.
"If you say so. To me, it was funny knowing every single so-called voter truther would of course immediately defend someone voting for someone else."
The assembly/legislature is different from a popular election though. For example, they have been, in the past, allowed to vote by phone. It's not an equal comparison.
GM: This is inevitable with our staggered state senate elections. It's happened in the past. Yawn.
Got a link to that?
CG replies: "It's in your link Einstein. Did you read it?"
Oops! Right George?
Idiot.
"disenfranchising certain racial groups"
This is just more of the same "it's not over until we win" bs from the left, and this argument needs to be demolished and ground into dust. Not one single citizen is being actually disenfranchised by the redistricting. Instead, the real issue (which of course can't be admitted) is that "we can't get the results we prefer with this redistricting". Oh, and of course the usual "people of (our defined) ethnicity must all think and act alike in political terms".
"garage mahal said...
Another person came up to cast that vote also, so clearly they were doing it at the direction of the absent Assembly person.
If you say so. To me, it was funny knowing every single so-called voter truther would of course immediately defend someone voting for someone else.
This is what happens when the ship is sinking and Kathleen Falk is your lifeboat.
The only thing sinking is Walker's approval rating, judging from the poll that just came out today. You might find this interesting:
The poll also asked about the ongoing grand jury investigation in Milwaukee that has led to charges against former Walker aides. About three-quarters of those polled said they were aware of the investigation. Of those who were aware, 52% agreed that it was “really something serious,” while 40% agreed with the statement that it was “just more politics.” "
Typical garage, can't respond on topic. Are you saying someone else didn't come up to vote? Did you not see the man in the dark suit with blue shirt reach for the voting button? For all I know it was the "absent" Assembly person in question, but clearly it was prearranged to have others vote for him/her. And no response to rule 6, or why it wasn't invoked. Why there is no outrage by Democrats in the Assembly. Or that this is precticed by both sides.
As others have said, comparing this to voter fraud shows just how unserious (and idiotic) you are garage.
As far as your poll, a not very clever way of taking what a poll results are and spinning them to back your statement.
"Walker’s approval rating fell from 50 percent in January to 46 percent. Unfavorable ratings also increased, from 45 to 48 percent. “That’s movement that’s just outside the margin of error of the poll, so I think it’s real movement,” says Franklin, adding that while the movement not good for Walker, it’s not “gigantic.”
LOL
Funny, you failed to mention that Walker's favorablerating is much better than Falk's, in fact twice as good.
"Falk saw her favorable rating increase from 19 to 22 percent, but Falk’s unfavorable rating is also up, from 25 to 28 percent. The survey found a lot of unknowns about Vinehout."
Your lifeboat is actually an anchor. But you hang on tight!
What cracks me up is that most of the people commenting about this case and raging about the democrats and distracting with asinine comments obliquely referencing Obama and admitting your ignorance ("I don't know what the secrecy agreement is pledged to keep secret!") have not even followed the case! News flash: 2 of the 3 judges were appointed by Republicans, and all of them are considered conservative. The 300,000 people who don't get to vote for senate have been deliberately manipulated to retain republican-held seats. The maps are ridiculous and obvious attempts to divide votes rather than address population. The secrecy pledge-- which as far as anyone knows has never been made before-- is 100% designed to allow the leadership to lie about what is happening at the same time deliberately engage in the above. And the emails prove it. They are to and from attorneys who were hired to represent the WI Assembly, paid for by taxpayers, but they will not talk to Assembly Democrats. And on top of that, they are so damn stupid that they keep getting chewed out in dramatic fashion, and had to personally cough up over $17,000 from their own pockets.
And that's why the coverage is so negative Ann. The facts show the Republicans are unquestionably acting like idiots, and have been warned over and over by the court.
As others have said, comparing this to voter fraud shows just how unserious (and idiotic) you are garage.
I didn't compare it to voter fraud. It does show that your side does not care about what it preaches though. Kleefisch voted 3 times for someone else on the same day voter ID when into effect, when a Vet's VA ID wasn't good enough to vote.
"I didn't compare it to voter fraud. It does show that your side does not care about what it preaches though. Kleefisch voted 3 times for someone else on the same day voter ID when into effect, when a Vet's VA ID wasn't good enough to vote."
Are we going to compare how the Rotary Club votes next?
You really are losing it Garage.
I hope that Wisconsin has adequate suicide prevention hotlines for you other kool-aid swigging idiots after Walker wins by double digits, the Republicans take the Senate while keeping the House, and B. Hussein joins the ranks of unemployed.
On second thought, I only hope that they have adequate suicide prevention hotlines if their cost is less than that of corpse disposal. Whatever has less of a burden on productive tax paying citizens.
Garage,
I have a Vet's VA ID card. And it shouldn't be enough to vote. It has no address on it. Even a federal military ID (Active Duty, Reserves, Retired, Dependent) have no addresses.
Voting districts should be based solely upon population, not demographics of any kind. If each particular district in a state should have, say, 350,000 in it then find a square or rectangular area with that many people in it. Be the area is 2 square miles or 100 square miles it's square or rectangular without all the Gerrymandering "C" or "Z" or "J" shaped districts. Or those barbell shaped districts that have two disparate bubbles, miles apart, connected by a road.
Kimsch
In the emails, lawyers admit to "wildy gerrymandering" a hispanic district, the 7th Assembly. The public testimony was all orchestrated. People like Rick Esenberg agreed in advance to testify in favor of the maps without even seeing them. It's not even what they do sometimes, it's how they do it. They changed state law to start on the maps before local municipalities even submitted their numbers to the state.
Is "wildly gerrymandering" like "hide the decline," where it doesn't mean what it plainly means, or is it OK to take words at face value?
Do you have the quote, or do I have to trust you?
Public testimony is almost always orchestrated and vetted through a series of drafts before being given to the person testifying, by the way.
It's just that when the public sees that, we don't like what we see (such as when the general or admiral last year complained about the White House leaning on him and trying to have him change his testimony).
Forgive me if I'm not aghast at politicians doing politics.
"garage mahal said...
I didn't compare it to voter fraud. It does show that your side does not care about what it preaches though. Kleefisch voted 3 times for someone else on the same day voter ID when into effect, when a Vet's VA ID wasn't good enough to vote."
Really, because the Video you linked to is Titled "Proof Of Voter Fraud In The Wisconsin State Assembly". Weird.
And again you compare Kleefisch's voting to the voter ID law, whose sole purpose is to eliminate fraud.
Other than that, my only response to your continued idiocy is an apple isn't an orange isn't a banana.
"In its order Thursday, the court said legal advice could remain confidential, but not political or strategic advice. The Republicans had blended political and legal advice in the documents so extensively that the lines between them "practically disappeared" and all of them had to be released, the court said."
-- That seems a very dangerous precedent to set. So, any time politicians speak with lawyers about political or legal ramifications, that must be public? I'd love to use that reasoning to get reams of paperwork on the health care act and Operation F&F.
Is that really the precedent you want set, or is it just a convenient hook for this case that will be forgotten next time?
Garage,
We lost a congressional district here in Illinois. The Dem Gov, Senate, and Assembly put me in a different district. In fact most of my current district (8th) is now in two other districts (10th and 14th). The new 8th still retains only a little bit of the old 8th.
The idea, according to a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee memo that surfaced during a Republican lawsuit challenging the new map, was to create as many Illinois Democratic districts as possible to help a national effort to take back the House.
It's led to some odd geography throughout the state. In addition to the Elmhurst/North Side example, Rockford has been split into two districts, Chicago's South Side is now lumped in with Kankakee, and Aurora and Joliet are joined.
So, above the Cheese Curtain the Republican controlled state government is doing their thing and below the Cheese Curtain the Democrat controlled state government is doing their thing.
"A group of Democrats sued over the maps even before they were unveiled. Their case argues the maps violate the federal Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution because of how they treat minorities and because they move so many people from one district to another."
-- How could they know this before it was unveiled? We seem to think it was terrible to arrange to speak positively about the maps, but no one seems to condemn these people for blatant politicking before seeing them.
Again, I'm OK with a bruising political fight. I'm not OK with double standards and willful muddying of the issues at play.
I also like saying the Republicans wanted to keep documents secret; I bet Democrats want to keep documents confidential though.
I've only seen what, three articles now in my life from JS Online and it... it is blatantly biased that I suspect it is actually a well run blog-nexus like RedState or DailyKos as opposed to actual news.
Am I right?
Other than that, my only response to your continued idiocy is an apple isn't an orange isn't a banana.
Kleefisch is a Republican. That's your only answer.You have no other principles that guide you other than that, as you've demonstrated over and over again. Just admit it.
"Kleefisch is a Republican. That's your only answer.You have no other principles that guide you other than that, as you've demonstrated over and over again. Just admit it."
Garage -- have people voted who were not present before (yes, by phone, by the way -- that courtesy was revoked during the walk-out over before the recalls). So, clearly, sometimes, votes -can- be cast without physical presence.
You've yet to show me the rules governing what situations those count. If the only one is, as it appears, "times no one objects," then this is fine and legit. If there are actual rules governing it, show me.
kimsch: My opinion is that each redistricting should be drawn so that the incumbent for each district is moved to a different district so they either have to (a) move or (b) entice a new set of voters that they are worthy.
But it should all be done out in the open.
And the perimeters of the districts should be minimized.
"garage mahal said...
Other than that, my only response to your continued idiocy is an apple isn't an orange isn't a banana.
Kleefisch is a Republican. That's your only answer.You have no other principles that guide you other than that, as you've demonstrated over and over again. Just admit it."
LOL. I've said both sides vote for absent members and have even encouraged you to contact your Assembly person to see what they say. I don't care. Yawn. You are the only one making it a partisan issue.
You challenge my rebuttal on 300,000 people can't vote for Senate and the proof is your link.
You claim disfranchisement of some asshole vet and the link shows he chose not to vote and knew he couldn't use his VA Card.
Did you wake up saying "Today I want to be a baby seal....let's go find a hunter with a club?"
You claim disfranchisement of some asshole vet
Everyone is an asshole in yoyur world that questions the WIGOP way, isn't it. We'll see how that works out for ya.
"garage mahal said...
Everyone is an asshole in yoyur world that questions the WIGOP way, isn't it. We'll see how that works out for ya." Nope. But a guy that knows the law, and has the required ID to comply, and then decides to press the issue just so he can make a story about it is an asshole. As is the writer of the story. And people like you that try to make a claim of disfranchisement.
In the Marquette law school poll, the liberal Milwaukee and Madison media markets were over-represented.
The Milwaukee area makes up about 30% of the state population, but 43% of those polled.
The Madison area makes up about 11% of the state population, but 15% of those polled.
People's favorability ratings also varied depending on whether they were asked about the economy before or after they were asked about Obama and Walker.
Registered voters, not likely voters, were polled.
the federal claim is pretty much the same in all cases brought by lefies: "Boo hoo. We lost. Help us, judge. Give us what we couldn't win through democratic means."
Post a Comment