Althouse: "Judge who blocked Voter ID law signed Walker recall petition."

March 7, 2012

"Judge who blocked Voter ID law signed Walker recall petition."

So?

119 comments:

Anonymous said...: We would first have to pretend there is such a thing as an "impartial judge" to make this an issue, so I understand Ann's "so?"; 3/7/12, 2:15 PM
Rockeye said...: It's unseemly. Judges should, by virtue of their chosen position, place themselves above politcs. That is, unless one loves hearing about "activist judges."; 3/7/12, 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Is there a Democrat / Liberal Judge in the State of Wisconsin that didn't sign a recall petition?; 3/7/12, 2:17 PM
MadisonMan said...: This is as interesting to me as the Montana Judge who forwarded along the joke about Obama.; 3/7/12, 2:18 PM
chickelit said...: Yesterday the news read that he was "highly impartial." This news seems to contradict that.

Lie back Wisconsin and think of Californication.; 3/7/12, 2:21 PM
Original Mike said...: "So?"

So, in my field of medical research, the standard is not "no conflict of interest", but "not even an appearance of conflict of interest". Should we really expect less from our judges?; 3/7/12, 2:23 PM
Methadras said...: “He’s a citizen. He has a right to vote. He has a right to participate in the political process and the discourse of our state,” he said. “I don’t think it had any bearing on his decision in this case.”

He is a citizen, he has the right to vote, but to think for an instant that this doesn't have a bearing on his ability to make a proper decision in this case, is a lie and absurd. Conflict of interest notwithstanding, where is his justification of the legal ethics involved behind such a move?; 3/7/12, 2:25 PM
Anne M Ford said...: The judge does have a right to sign the petition and take part in the electoral process just like any citizen. However, when a case comes up when a conflict of interest appears, the judge should recuse him/herself.

I am reminded of the whole issue with Justices Ziegler, and Gableman. The liberals screamed bloody murder that they should have recused themselves in their respective cases, but now somehow it is okay?

Injustice should NEVER receive a "So?" I am amazed at your response.; 3/7/12, 2:25 PM
Aggle said...: @Original Mike,

In Texas, that is the standard. A Judge of course has the right to vote, but may not take a public position on a candidate or issue without first resigning the bench.

I don't know what the law in WI is.; 3/7/12, 2:26 PM
traditionalguy said...: OK. So he cannot rule on a challenge to his own signature. But there is not one unless the Walker guys are insane.

The most serious report appers to be that this rogue Judge ruled while his epidermis was showing.; 3/7/12, 2:27 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: I don't think the judge should recuse himself from this case because of his obvious partisanship. I think he should be removed from all cases because of his obvious incompetence, unless someone can point out exactly who William Scalia is.; 3/7/12, 2:29 PM
purplepenquin said...: Is this the same judge that took thousands of $$$ in services from a law firm in Milwaukee that then also appeared before him in several different cases, or am I thinking of someone else?; 3/7/12, 2:31 PM
Brian Brown said...: The more important point is that the judge's "legal reasoning" is incoherent babble.; 3/7/12, 2:33 PM
David said...: "A needle pulling thread . . . ."; 3/7/12, 2:35 PM
damikesc said...: Having signed a petition to remove a defendant in a case from office does kind of ruin the whole concept of the judge being impartial.

He's on record being anti-Walker...in addition to, apparently, being a bit of a moron.; 3/7/12, 2:37 PM
Petunia said...: From the Wisconsin code of judicial conduct:

"A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of recusal, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for recusal."

"No judge or candidate for judicial office or judge-elect may do any of the following:
1. Be a member of any political party.
2. Participate in the affairs, caucuses, promotions, platforms, endorsements, conventions, or activities of a political party or of a candidate for partisan office.

So.; 3/7/12, 2:38 PM
Calypso Facto said...: SCR 60.05(a) says that a judge "shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities" so they do not "cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. "

A much better discussion than "So?" at Shark and Shepherd.

Bonus: no unintelligible word verification; 3/7/12, 2:43 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.; 3/7/12, 2:46 PM
Pettifogger said...: As I understand the theory, it's that showing a picture ID is an unreasonably burdensome obstacle in the way of exercising a constitutional right.

I reflected on that this past weekend when I purchased a pistol at a gunshow. Not only did I need to show a picture ID, but I had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and wait for the feds to clear me over the phone.

There are people who may not lawfully own firearms. There are people who may not lawfully vote. Why are there different standards for exercising the two rights? Let's hear it for instant background checks for voters.; 3/7/12, 2:46 PM
Cornroaster said...: When was the case assigned to his court, and when did he sign the recall petition? If the case had been assigned to his court, and the Judge signed the recall petition against a defendant in his courtroom, then the Judge is incorrectly showing bias. If the Judge signed the recall petition before the case was assigned to his Court, he is simply exercising his rights as a citizen.; 3/7/12, 2:51 PM
edutcher said...: Lefty integrity.; 3/7/12, 2:53 PM
Alex said...: I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

Suddenly since the birth control kerfuffle, Ann is showing extreme hostility to Republicans in general. I think we know who she's voting for in November. Screw "cruel neutrality"!; 3/7/12, 2:56 PM
Hagar said...: The Professor seems to have a difficult time with her head this week.

The Republican position is that voter I.D. ought to be "a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process." That it is not, shows what the Democrats actually are up to, and proves that such measures really are needed.; 3/7/12, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: This is as interesting to me as the Montana Judge who forwarded along the joke about Obama.

Yep. Jokes and political activism are exactly the same thing.; 3/7/12, 2:58 PM
Patrick said...: The judge ought to be embarrassed at the poor quality of the memo, the errors and the poor writing. He ought to be embarrassed that he quite possibly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by signing the petition.

Those don't likely affect the validity of his Order and Memo. They quite clearly fail completely on their own.

Prof. Althouse, your notion that these two aren't related may be correct, but whether the Republicans view them as partisan or not, they should not stand mute when (or if) a Judge acts as though the are. Like it or not, Voter ID is favored by the Republicans, (and most citizens) and disfavored by Democrats. If a judge wrote a poorly reasoned memo and Order in order to buttress the Democratic position, that hardly is the fault of the Republicans.; 3/7/12, 3:01 PM
garage mahal said...: Is this the same judge that took thousands of $$$ in services from a law firm in Milwaukee that then also appeared before him in several different cases, or am I thinking of someone else?

You're thinking of Gableman. Appeared in front of, and ruled in favor of.; 3/7/12, 3:02 PM
Sofa King said...: What is more outrageous is that yet again, Dane County voters get an extra veto over legislation passed for the entire state, effectively making residents of this county super-citizens. That's really unjustifiable and conceivably deserves a constitutional remedy.; 3/7/12, 3:04 PM
Henry said...: I dunno. The interesting graf to me is the fact that the judge changed his mind:

New testimony from a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor appears to have changed Flanagan’s mind. Political science professor Kenneth Mayer’s reports indicated that a significant proportion of eligible Wisconsin voters, particularly minority groups and elderly, do not possess acceptable photo ID. Flanagan called Mayer’s testimony “competent, well-founded, entirely credible and persuasive.”

That's research I would like to see. I would think, even if the research is valid, it could be trumped by a mechanism by which people can easily get the photo IDs. Does such a mechanism exist in the Wisconsin law?

So, in contrast, I wonder an indelible ink ID law could pass without challenge. Would it be challenged anyway? On what grounds?

Let's scrap the photo ID idea as judicially unworkable and just pass an indelible ink ID law.; 3/7/12, 3:06 PM
Franklin said...: Jesus. Louisiana is the Wisconsin of the South.; 3/7/12, 3:10 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

You sold me..

But not so judge mental.; 3/7/12, 3:20 PM
gadfly said...: "So?"

So if you are a judge who has publicly demonstrated bias against
conservative politics and views, then you need to demonstrate ethics by voluntarily recusing yourself on cases where you have predetermined that a particular outcome would be contrary to your own opinions and beliefs. Neutrality is the key.; 3/7/12, 3:26 PM
Justice William Scalia said...: unless someone can point out exactly who William Scalia is.

Did someone call?; 3/7/12, 3:27 PM
damikesc said...: I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

So, even if one side makes it a partisan issue, there should be no concerns about the impartiality of a judge? It should be quite uncontroversial, but hey, one party deeply requires voter fraud and the other one, apparently, does not.

I think the Rush/Fluke story is a non-issue of the highest order. I guess that means it was one and nobody talked about it.

If the Judge signed the recall petition before the case was assigned to his Court, he is simply exercising his rights as a citizen.

Nobody is saying the judge had no right to sign the petition.

He SHOULD recuse himself from a case where the person he advocates to be removed from office is a listed defendant.; 3/7/12, 3:28 PM
Curious George said...: "Ann Althouse said...
I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process."

It is. As you would say, "so?". Voter ID is required to insure honest elections. The GAB is filing an appeal. The WIGOP is filing an ethics complaint, not based on his ruling but his actions (failure to disclose).; 3/7/12, 3:29 PM
tim maguire said...: I think it's unseemly for judges to sign recall petitions because they are so inherently political, but it's hard to see the connection between that and the granting of a temporary injunction on the voter ID law.

That is, I think it was unprofessional for him to sign the recall petition. Period.; 3/7/12, 3:34 PM
kjbe said...: And surprise, Waukesha County GOP judge, Mac Brown, who's delayed Walker's recall & kept his unlimited out-of-state cash spigot open is a Walker donor.; 3/7/12, 3:37 PM
Bob_R said...: The voter ID law is not partisan. It will only hurt parties for whom cheating is a regular part of their electoral strategy. There aren't any of those in Wisconsin, right?; 3/7/12, 3:40 PM
chickelit said...: Ann Althouse said...
I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

On the other hand, the Democratic position on voter I.D. laws was that it did have a partisan quality, i.e., that it was foisted by Republicans. This could be supported by checking whether any Democrats opposed the initiative.; 3/7/12, 3:41 PM
Revenant said...: Is there any actual legal basis for the injunction? The Supreme Court has already stated that voter ID requirements are Constitutionally permitted.

Is there something new about this particular law to make it "controversial", or is it just "controversial" in the sense that Democrats wish it wasn't the law of the land?; 3/7/12, 3:47 PM
machine said...: So, we agree Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from the health care case...

Just wanted to be certain...; 3/7/12, 3:51 PM
garage mahal said...: And surprise, Waukesha County GOP judge, Mac Brown, who's delayed Walker's recall & kept his unlimited out-of-state cash spigot open is a Walker donor.

Also surprise, the complaint heading to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the 9 member board, just got 5 new members. 5 WIGOP donors. Ta dah!

When they introduced themselves, three of the nominees referred to their long-term marriages as qualifications to serve on the Commission. One of these, Eileen Burnett of De Pere, spoke at some length of her experience as a homemaker and expert in abstinence education. What she didn’t mention was her record of donating $5,350 directly to Republican campaigns over the past eight years. Link.; 3/7/12, 3:51 PM
machine said...: and can we stop pretending voter ID laws were enacted to reduce voter fraud yet?; 3/7/12, 3:53 PM
Rockeye said...: This position is actually quite consistent with that of Wisconsin Democrats. They don't want to verify the recall petition signatures, and they certainly don't want to verify eligibility to vote in any election.; 3/7/12, 3:59 PM
damikesc said...: So, we agree Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from the health care case...

I think you mean Kagan.

and can we stop pretending voter ID laws were enacted to reduce voter fraud yet?

You can't PROVE it happens.

...largely because we fight any attempt to have any ID for voting in the first place.

Don't worry, machine. A bunch of Southern towns swore, up and down, that blacks really didn't want to vote.; 3/7/12, 4:19 PM
Calypso Facto said...: and can we stop pretending voter ID laws were enacted to reduce voter fraud yet?

because all 36 registered voters at Lena Taylor's (D-Milwaukee) mother's shuttered group home were obviously legitimate?; 3/7/12, 4:20 PM
chickelit said...: I just looked over the injunction

I took away:

The Plaintiff's claims are said to rely exclusively on the Wisconsin Constitution, yet the injunction relied on numerous out-of-state decisions. What's up with that? It looks bad & inconsistent.

I learned that as of 2002, 221,975 eligible voters in Wisconsin lacked ID. No reasons were given as to why or what could remedy this. They just are and forever shall be so. I wonder if Professor Pawasarat (whose work underpins the injunction) was able to establish who he was counting and interviewing if these same people had no ID.

These are just questions a lay person takes away after a cursory look through. I hope the lawyers go to town with this.; 3/7/12, 4:23 PM
KCFleming said...: Wisconsin Democrats reject the appearance of propriety.; 3/7/12, 4:25 PM
Joanna said...: When was the case assigned to his court, and when did he sign the recall petition?

According to this, the case was assigned on 16 Dec. He signed the recall petition on 15 November.; 3/7/12, 4:31 PM
garage mahal said...: because all 36 registered voters at Lena Taylor's (D-Milwaukee) mother's shuttered group home were obviously legitimate?

I'm assuming you're referring to the Media Trackers claim?

That's a step Media Trackers didn't take.; 3/7/12, 4:37 PM
garage mahal said...: Link; 3/7/12, 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Wisconsin has elected judges. Madison is Havana on Lake Mendota. So it is no surprise the judges elected by extreme Liberals ignore the law and support the Lefts' agenda. This is why the composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is so important.; 3/7/12, 4:40 PM
C R Krieger said...: I talked to someone here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and he said the law here says you have to have some form of ID, even if it is just a utility bill—which is what I have to show when I register for classes to get the reduced tuition. The poll folks may ask for it, but don't have to, unless something is suspicious. His push is that everyone show it regardless. He and his outfit film polling places, as a deterrent to fraud. Filming is legal and acceptable, unless the local Voter Registration folks and police are ignorant of the law.

As for this judge, isn't there a higher court to which one could appeal? This is not a flash in the pan issue, but something for the long haul.

Someone made a snide comment about the new system for avoiding robots. I dislike it (the new system) very much.

Regards — Cliff; 3/7/12, 4:43 PM
coolkevs said...: What she didn’t mention was her record of donating $5,350 directly to Republican campaigns over the past eight years

well, whoop dee do! $670/year! that'll pay for .00006875 of Walker's recall campaign; 3/7/12, 4:46 PM
garage mahal said...: Wisconsin has elected judges. Madison is Havana on Lake Mendota. So it is no surprise the judges elected by extreme Liberals ignore the law and support the Lefts' agenda

Flanagan, a Vietnam Vet, Navy Seal, was appointed to the bench by Tommy Thompson. Nice try though.; 3/7/12, 4:49 PM
WineSlob said...: Flanagan Like A Good Union Mannequin
In the Judicial Tradition of Madison
With Yellow Teeth Clenched
He Usurped from the Bench
Following the Corrupt Lefty Plan Again.; 3/7/12, 4:58 PM
cubanbob said...: Ann Althouse said...
I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

3/7/12 2:46 PM

How is it not? You do have to produce ID to excise other rights, like gun rights, right to travel by plane. Perhaps those who claim they have no photo ID because its too burdensome ought to sign an affidavit with a perjury clause saying they have no photo ID's.
Then after the ballot is cast run a check against a database of ID's and if they do so, charge them with criminal perjury.

The democrat argument fails because virtually every one they claim is too burdened is inevitably getting some form of aid that requires some form of picture ID.

I'm not a WI voter but if this is what passes for judicial integrity then Louisiana is owed an apology.
At least there corruption is honest, it's only about money, nothing personal or for idealogical reasons. This judge is a joke and ought to be removed from office.; 3/7/12, 5:02 PM
Methadras said...: Ann Althouse said...

I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process.

I think you are a little tone deaf on this one Prof. This is a weird tract for you to take. This isn't about republicans positions on voter I.D. laws, but rather the completely and unashamed attempt by the leftards to use judicial tools to subvert the laws through any means necessary regardless of conflicts of interest and the lack of ethics in this case.; 3/7/12, 5:04 PM
cubanbob said...: As noted here by another commenter that the US Supreme Court ruled that photo ID for voting is permissible, then next republican congress ought the repeal motor voter act and replace it with a federal photo ID act for voting.
And require under criminal sanction that election officials send out absentee ballots to the military with sufficient time for the voter to get the ballot and to require the military post mark as the date the ballot was cast.

The democrats want to enfranchise the dead, the criminals, the mentally incompetent, the illegals but not the the military. That tels you all you need to know about the democrats.; 3/7/12, 5:16 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Thanks for choosing to rebut an argument I didn't make about a certain felon's right to vote, garage.

Again, here's the question: Do you honestly believe that Collins and the 35 others from the same house, owned by Sen. Taylor, zoned for 8, CLOSED before Collins was released from jail and same-day registered with that address, were all legitimately registered voters?; 3/7/12, 5:18 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: I really don't have a problem with him signing the petition. Not a bright move for someone in his position but intelligence obviously isn't his strong suit. Anyway, his ruling will end up on the judicial scrap heap when he receives the inevitable Sumi smack down.; 3/7/12, 5:19 PM
caplight said...: Garage is having a good day.

Good on ya, Bro.; 3/7/12, 5:36 PM
garage mahal said...: Calypso
The Assistant DA and sheriff looked into this, no? What did they find?; 3/7/12, 5:41 PM
Wince said...: Scott Walker is the first named defendant in the lawsuit.

The judge is presently petitioning a separate department of the state government in support of an adverse, extrajudicial action against an actual party in the case that also happens to be a co-equal branch of the government.

Moreover, that petition for the special recall election during the pendency of the case is a sine qua non of the "irreparable harm" cited by the judge in issuing his injunction.; 3/7/12, 5:44 PM
Revenant said...: I was really hoping someone could answer my question about the legal basis of the decision.; 3/7/12, 5:54 PM
Jason said...: Have any of you actually read Flanagan's opinion? Its the most sloppy piece of legal writing Ive ever read. The guy cited the wrong article to the Consitution, and called Justice Scalia "William Scalia".

And as far as actually sitting on the bench in this case: you mean to tell me Ms. Althouse that you see no conflict of interest in a judge presiding over the case of a politician whom he signed a recall petition against? In a case where his ruling may have a bearing on the election of said politician?

The judicial branch exists as the impartial branch of government. The minute we lose that impartiality, we lose our country.; 3/7/12, 5:55 PM
Jason said...: And just to clarify my post - I have no problem with the judge signing the recall petition. Its his right as a private citizen of Wisconsin. But at the same time, there is no way he shouldnt recuse himself from this case because of it.; 3/7/12, 5:59 PM
garage mahal said...: In a case where his ruling may have a bearing on the election of said politician?

So you're saying photo ID helps Scott Walker in an election?; 3/7/12, 6:06 PM
Jason said...: So you're saying photo ID helps Scott Walker in an election?

Read my post. I said it "MAY" have a bearing. I have no idea if voter ID will "help" one candidate or not. I really dont care who it helps, to be honest, as long as it goes a long way in preventing election fraud.

However, the fact that Dems and lefty organizations continue to sue and try to stop voter ID laws is proof enough as to who wants to benefit from not having any voter ID.

If are a legal resident and only plan to vote once, the voter ID law really is no big deal. The only people its an issue for are those who will try to vote illegally.; 3/7/12, 6:12 PM
Tom Spaulding said...: It's not 'Voter I.D." Wrong framing of the message. Voter I.D. is the method.

The reason to have a Voter I.D. law is to make sure that the most sacred of all of our rights, the right to vote, one time per citizen, is kept inviolate.

Everyone, from all parties, MUST be able to prove they are who they say they are, or the right to vote is corrupted. Period.

It is your DUTY as a citizen to be able to prove you are who you say you are. When you can do that, you can vote.

What's the argument against that again?; 3/7/12, 6:22 PM
Wince said...: As noted here by another commenter that the US Supreme Court ruled that photo ID for voting is permissible...

Conservatives need to be careful here.

Remember, a voter ID law is viewed as a state action that in some measure limits citizens' fundamental rights.

Under federalism, states can offer greater protections against state action than granted by the US Constitution, by reference either to the state’s constitution or its laws.

A US Supreme Court ruling only limits how far states may go to restrict access to voting by requiring ID.

Hence, a SCOTUS decision cannot prevent an individual state (or its high court) from further limiting itself as to how much the state may infringe on a right of its citizens.; 3/7/12, 6:28 PM
Wince said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/7/12, 6:36 PM
granmary said...: "So? Typical lib response. The closer the election gets the more the good professor returns to her liberal roots.; 3/7/12, 6:37 PM
Revenant said...: So you're saying photo ID helps Scott Walker in an election?

Inasmuch as Democrats (e.g., ACORN) are more likely to fraudulently register voters, an ID requirement making fraudulent voting more difficult would help Republicans.

Regardless, an injunction only makes sense if you assume the law has an effect on the election outcome. If it doesn't, you might as well leave it in place.; 3/7/12, 6:37 PM
Wince said...: Revenant,

The controversy irrespective of any SCOTUS ruling is whether the Wisconsin state constitution further limits the state of Wisconsin itself in its ability to restrict the voting rights of its citizens by requiring ID.; 3/7/12, 6:38 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Im in Tampa on business and I saw several black people and at least half a dozen senior citizens on the plane. I had to show my id along with my boarding pass so I have no idea how they got on since those two demographics can't get id cards.

Or so I'm told.; 3/7/12, 6:40 PM
Revenant said...: EDH,

Hence, a SCOTUS decision cannot prevent an individual state (or its high court) from further limiting itself as to how much the state may infringe on a right of its citizens.

Aren't you forgetting that fraudulent voting also infringes on the rights of citizens?

The Constitution binds states to offer representative government. Implicit in that is that voting be unmarred by fraud. Even under the principles of federalism, the 14th amendment grants Congress the power to prevent states from effectively disenfranchising citizens by allowing other citizens to cast illegitimate ballots.; 3/7/12, 6:47 PM
garage mahal said...: Inasmuch as Democrats (e.g., ACORN) are more likely to fraudulently register voters, an ID requirement making fraudulent voting more difficult would help Republicans

e.g ACORN?

The only fraud unearthed after years trying to find it here in Wisconsin, was a handful of felons. This amounts to a rate of 0.0025% within Milwaukee and 0.0002% within the state as a whole. Which photo ID would not have prevented.; 3/7/12, 6:54 PM
Chip S. said...: Can judges be recalled in WI?; 3/7/12, 7:03 PM
Revenant said...: EDH,

Having read the opinion I have to say I'm not impressed. It appears to be based entirely on the fact that the Wisconsin constitution defines electors as US citizens of age 18+ who reside in a WI voting district.

But the ID law doesn't restrict US citizens of age 18+ from voting. It just requires that their identity as citizens of age 18+ be confirmed.

Eh, it is a moot point. In the short term he may be able to game this particular election and give voter fraud its last gasp in Wisconsin. In the long run voter ID is here to stay -- Americans overwhelmingly support it and the federal courts are on board. Nobody buys that nonsense about ID being a hard-to-meet requirement.; 3/7/12, 7:04 PM
Revenant said...: The only fraud unearthed after years trying to find it

Well yes, garage, if you refuse to check if the person voting is who he says he is, you will never find evidence that he isn't who he says he is. Weird, no?

But the fact that you're fighting so hard against validation is ample evidence that you know phony ballots are being cast. :); 3/7/12, 7:08 PM
chickelit said...: Two people in a room.
One says "let's pass a law" and the other says "OK, it helps because it's bipartisan"

or:
One says "let's pass a partisan law and the other says "No way!"

or:
One says "let's pass a law" but the other says "No way, it's partisan"
_______
Only the first scenario is bipartisan. Clearly this didn't happen in Wisconsin which means the proposed law is partisan. Scenarios 2 and 3 seem unfair to either side and shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Also, the option of "let's not do anything at all" could be construed as upsetting scenario 3.; 3/7/12, 7:09 PM
Chip S. said...: Ann Althouse said...

I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality...

"Nonpartisan" =/= "nonneutral" if one party benefits systematically from vote fraud.

You can draw your own inferences from the two parties' respective positions on the issue.; 3/7/12, 7:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: Is there something new about this particular law to make it "controversial", or is it just "controversial" in the sense that Democrats wish it wasn't the law of the land?

IANAL (Obviously), but I suspect it's the latter. Part of the process I suppose. Laws are frequently challenged in court when one party is very opposed to them.; 3/7/12, 7:24 PM
garage mahal said...: Well yes, garage, if you refuse to check if the person voting is who he says he is, you will never find evidence that he isn't who he says he is. Weird, no?

Photo ID is NOT going to prevent any of the voter fraud you're talking about, which is impersonation. There has been like one known instance of that btw 2001-2004, out of 400 million cast. Fraud doesn't happen with people that walk into the polls. It's only purpose is to keep people from voting. Everybody knows it.

The case in Wisconsin is pretty interesting because we have a great state constitution, and is uniquely different than the Indiana case

Snippet:

He also noted that although an Indiana voter ID law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, that law was fundamentally different from Wisconsin's in three ways: The Indiana law was based on the U.S. Constitution, which does not expressly guarantee the right to vote, as Wisconsin's constitution does; the Indiana law is not as rigid as Wisconsin's and offers alternative voting opportunities to those without a photo ID; and those who challenged the Indiana law did not back up that challenge with the "substantial evidence that has been offered by the plaintiffs in this action." Link; 3/7/12, 8:16 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: How can possibly showing ID keep people from voting? How? Unless of course you can somehow function in todays society without ID. Do these people not use a bank, travel, drive, buy beer, prescriptions, rent a movie or any of the myriad things that require an ID?

Christ I got carded at Chilis today and I'm 44. Maybe I should have cried racism.; 3/7/12, 8:27 PM
garage mahal said...: I should say: photo ID will ONLY prevent impersonation of other voters. Which, as I said, is exceedingly rare. Nobody is that stupid.

I do believe fraud does occur, but it isn't from people voting. A lot easier to fix on the back end.; 3/7/12, 8:28 PM
Jason said...: Fraud doesn't happen with people that walk into the polls.

If you truly believe that, you are stupider than you portray yourself to be.

Tell the 4 people in Van Wangaard's Senate district who had their signatures forged on a recall petition that fraud doesnt happen in elections.

If not having a valid ID on you "prevents people from voting", as you say, then they shouldnt be voting. Only a complete idiot, or an illegal alien, does not have some sort of valid identification. You certainly cant exist in today's country without it.; 3/7/12, 8:29 PM
Jason said...: I should say: photo ID will ONLY prevent impersonation of other voters. Which, as I said, is exceedingly rare. Nobody is that stupid.

Well, if thats the case, then people like yourself and other lefties should have no problem supporting it. You support free and fair elections, right? If thats the case, and this photo ID law will prevent impersonation, you should be among the first to support it.; 3/7/12, 8:35 PM
garage mahal said...: If you truly believe that, you are stupider than you portray yourself to be.

Tell the 4 people in Van Wangaard's Senate district who had their signatures forged on a recall petition that fraud doesnt happen in elections.

Those 4 people didn't cast ballots, Einstein. Photo ID wouldn't have prevented that either, even if photo ID was required to sign! You could take one ID to thousands of different petitioners.; 3/7/12, 8:40 PM
Jason said...: Those 4 people didn't cast ballots, Einstein. Photo ID wouldn't have prevented that either, even if photo ID was required to sign! You could take one ID to thousands of different petitioners.

Thank you for completely missing my point.; 3/7/12, 8:47 PM
garage mahal said...: If thats the case, and this photo ID law will prevent impersonation, you should be among the first to support it.

I'd like to hear the list of costly and inconvenience causing laws your leaders espouse, so I can vote against them. Voter ID would cost the state millions of dollars fixing a problem that doesn't exist. That's if it's even legal in accordance with our state Constitution.; 3/7/12, 8:55 PM
jeff said...: "I thought the Republican position on voter I.D. laws was that they did not have a partisan quality, that they are just a neutral and simple step that should be part of the voting process."

Right, but since "They named Walker and members of the Government Accountability Board as defendants." And since the judge signed a petition to remove Walker from office (in which capacity he is a defendant in this case) wouldn't that be sufficient reason to recuse himself? No matter what the actual lawsuit is about?; 3/7/12, 8:56 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Heh, a liberal complaining the government is spending money on a non issue.

That's fucking hysterical.; 3/7/12, 8:59 PM
Jason said...: I'd like to hear the list of costly and inconvenience causing laws your leaders espouse, so I can vote against them.

Murder is pretty rare around my parts. Does that mean we should wipe that law off the books in my town?

Voter ID would cost the state millions of dollars fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If you say the problem doesnt exist, the voter ID law wont cost the state much of anything.

Last I checked, pulling out your ID to show the poll worker your picture doesnt cost anything.; 3/7/12, 9:01 PM
chickelit said...: Voter ID would cost the state millions of dollars fixing a problem that doesn't exist. That's if it's even legal in accordance with our state Constitution.

Not sure about your math there g-rage. A couple million to provide less than a quarter million un-ID'd? Hell, how many untold trillion must have been spent giving ID's to everyone else?

How many millions must that Professor have spent on interviewing each and everyone of those no-ID hold-outs?; 3/7/12, 9:05 PM
chickelit said...: @garage: Have you got any clues why state government workers are so damn expensive?; 3/7/12, 9:07 PM
garage mahal said...: You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If you say the problem doesnt exist, the voter ID law wont cost the state much of anything

It's going to cost millions just to implement. The entire state voting apparatus needs to be revamped and retrofitted. It's a giant pain in the ass to everyone involved. And, again, prevents jack shit. It's not even a Wisconsin bill anyways, it's just a ALEC bill, not written in, or for, Wisconsin.; 3/7/12, 9:11 PM
garage mahal said...: How many millions must that Professor have spent on interviewing each and everyone of those no-ID hold-outs?

no-ID holdouts? Wisconsin is only one of 7 states with strict photo ID laws. Arguably, Wisc is the most restrictive. So it's us, the Confederates, and Indiana.

I have to say, I'm sick and fucking tired of Johnny Reb in Wisconsin.; 3/7/12, 9:17 PM
Jason said...: It's going to cost millions just to implement

How? It was just used without a hitch in the primary elections a few weeks back. There's nothing to "implement".

It's a giant pain in the ass to everyone involved.

There you have it folks, straight from a liberal. Voter ID shouldnt be passed because "its a giant pain in the ass."

If its such a "pain in the ass" to show your identification when you go vote, then you shouldnt vote. Because that means you obviously dont care if your voting rights are abused by someone else.; 3/7/12, 9:21 PM
Jason said...: I have to say, I'm sick and fucking tired of Johnny Reb in Wisconsin.

No one is forcing you to stay.

Of course, moving might be a "giant pain in the ass."; 3/7/12, 9:25 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Heh...voter id is a giant pain in the ass. But Obamacare...now that's what regulation is all about. And it only costs a paltry trillion bucks.; 3/7/12, 9:26 PM
Steve Austin said...: I have no problem with this judge signing the recall. I think over the last 30 years, most conservatives in Wisconsin thought judges were impartial. They've since learned the hard way that most lib judges run for office on law and order commons sense platforms, but then start deciding cases like they are Nancy Pelosi.

I think this injunction will ultimately be a positive for the GOP. The voter ID is pretty settled law nationally and is a 70 to 75% positive approval item.

People already got a taste of the ID law three weeks ago during a number of primaries. It worked and people liked it. This over-reach by Judge Che Guevarra will only give the GOP some good talking points and fundraising material for the recalls.

In the end, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will likely uphold the law. The only question is whether our AG will be bold enough to figure out how to get it there before the kangaroo court hearing that will take place on April 16. I mean this judge basically said he's going to strike it down before the issue is even formally heard.; 3/7/12, 9:28 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If Johnny Reb bothers you so much, you should try Cuba, better weather, free health care, heck one of the leftys idols is still there and the best part.....they don't have no stinkin voter ID laws!; 3/7/12, 9:30 PM
Jason said...: no-ID holdouts? Wisconsin is only one of 7 states with strict photo ID laws. Arguably, Wisc is the most restrictive. So it's us, the Confederates, and Indiana.

Pennsylvania was in the confederacy? They are just about ready to pass voter ID too.; 3/7/12, 9:32 PM
garage mahal said...: The Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the law could cost more than $5.7 million to implement. That includes $2.2 million in costs for the Government Accountability Board (which includes education and outreach), almost $2 million for the Transportation Department (to cover employee expenses and the cost of free IDs) and more than $1.6 million if universities chose to remake student IDs.

Here is Act 23.

There is your small government hard at work! Just admit its a crock of shit.; 3/7/12, 9:32 PM
Jason said...: In the end, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will likely uphold the law. The only question is whether our AG will be bold enough to figure out how to get it there before the kangaroo court hearing that will take place on April 16. I mean this judge basically said he's going to strike it down before the issue is even formally heard.

JB Van Hollen has already announced that he is challenging the injunction for expedited appeal. He isnt waiting for the trial in April.; 3/7/12, 9:34 PM
Rusty said...: Well then yes garage you've convinced me. Lets not check Any IDs on election day. After all the percentage of people voting fraudulently is astronomically small. So lets dispense with it all together.
yeah. Right.; 3/7/12, 9:37 PM
Jason said...: The Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the law could cost more than $5.7 million to implement. That includes $2.2 million in costs for the Government Accountability Board (which includes education and outreach), almost $2 million for the Transportation Department (to cover employee expenses and the cost of free IDs) and more than $1.6 million if universities chose to remake student IDs.

Here is Act 23.

There is your small government hard at work! Just admit its a crock of shit.

Well, if according to you the recall is well worth the $10+ million its going to cost Wisconsin taxpayers - with half the state not agreeing with it - then the $5.7 million it may cost to have voter ID fully functional is fine with me too, especially since a large majority of Wisconsin voters are in support of this law.; 3/7/12, 9:38 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Implementing voter ID is chump change compared to what scams like WEA Trust have cost Wisconsin taxpayers over the years. And better yet, voter ID is something most Wisconsinites actually want.; 3/7/12, 9:42 PM
Wince said...: Rev,

I suspect you are right that the Wisconsin state constitution and case law do not support striking the voter ID law. That and the federal constitutional argument you make both go to the “likelihood of success on the merits” prong of the injunction analysis, and will figure in the state court’s decision and any potential appeal.

But even a wrongly decided Wisconsin decision throwing out a Wisconsin voter ID law based on the Wisconsin high court’s interpretation of the Wisconsin state constitution that limits Wisconsin state action is unlikely to be taken up by SCOTUS on appeal.

I doubt they’d touch that with a ten foot pole.

Rather, it’s likely you’d have to present a separate, actual "case or controversy” involving a factual claim that involved the kind of voter dilution by fraud you describe before a federal court would take the issue on (US) constitutional grounds.; 3/7/12, 9:49 PM
garage mahal said...: JB Van Hollen has already announced that he is challenging the injunction for expedited appeal. He isnt waiting for the trial in April.

JB Van Hollen spent two years looking for voter fraud in Wisconsin and came up empty!

Why are Wisconsin conservatives always accusing other Wisconsinites of rampant fraud, even when facts keep proving otherwise? Why would a smart fiscally conservative manager bother with such trivial shit, spending court time and taxpayer money? You know why, you just won't admit it. Or JB Van Hollen.; 3/7/12, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann,

WTH is going on in your brain these last 2 weeks?; 3/7/12, 10:47 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Thanks for still not answering my question, garage.

BTW, here's a poll on the subject from your favorite pollsters at PPP:

Do you agree or disagree that a person who wishes to vote should be required to show photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot?

Agree 86%
Disagree 10%

Looks like a great issue to win election support on.; 3/7/12, 10:51 PM
Revenant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/12, 12:38 AM
mike said...: From Patterico-

But, but, it’s not like the judge is just a partisan hack, right? I mean, his ruling is still quality legal scholarship, isn’t it? Replete with careful citations to the applicable laws and sound arguments?

Eh, not so much:

Statehouse staffers spent Tuesday afternoon counting the mistakes in Flanagan’s 11-page order on voter ID.

The most notable is Flanagan’s reference to “Justice William Scalia.” That would be U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Several sentences in the decision are garbled.

Flanagan refers to the wrong section of the state Constitution when he says it “sets forth explicitly the requirement for eligibility to vote, Art. I, Sect. 2 (4).”

The article and section cited by Flanagan deals, instead, with the prohibition of slavery. He meant to refer to Article III.

Cullen Werwie, spokesman for the governor, took note of the discrepancies: “Our legal team is still trying to locate Justice William Scalia.”; 3/8/12, 1:57 AM
Rusty said...: 1) Chicago declare itself a Sanctuary City.(2nd largest urban hispanic population outside of LA)

2)Motor voter

3)Democrat landslide!; 3/8/12, 7:40 AM
kjbe said...: Some may be getting the cart a bit before the horse - the Judge did not rule on anything, just that there is enough evidence to move to trial and we should revert to the old rules. He can still over turn his current ruling when the actual trial is concluded.; 3/8/12, 9:55 AM
RonF said...: Oooo. So I can't be required to show a government-issued ID to exercise my Constitutional rights? I guess that ID requirements to buy and carry guns just went out the window in Wisconsin, eh?; 3/8/12, 5:20 PM
RonF said...: Garage said:

The only fraud unearthed after years trying to find it here in Wisconsin, was a handful of felons.

Years of trying to find it? Really? Who looked? What methods did they use? Can you support this assertion with any actual facts?; 3/8/12, 5:24 PM