March 23, 2015

The Supreme Court refuses to hear the Wisconsin voter ID case, which will now go into effect.

"The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was a surprise, as the court last year temporarily blocked the law for the November election, and voters were not required to show photo identifications in order to vote," writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, upheld the law, reasoning that it was similar to one from Indiana that the Supreme Court had sustained in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The full Seventh Circuit deadlocked 5 to 5 on a request to rehear the Wisconsin case, drawing a sharp dissent from Judge Richard A. Posner, who had written the 2007 appeals court opinion upholding the Indiana law, later affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Civil rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would use the Wisconsin case, Frank v. Walker, No. 14-803, to reconsider its 2008 decision....

72 comments:

TosaGuy said...

Only twenty months until the 2016 election for people to get the proper ID. Predicting that folks who put this off for 19 months and 3 weeks will have sob stories about them in the newspaper.

BJK said...

Can't help but notice the refusal comes 2 weeks before the spring election period (April 7th) in WI.

The cynic in me suspects the Supreme Court doesn't care about the timing, so long as it doesn't affect a federal election.

RecChief said...

TosaGuy said...
Only twenty months until the 2016 election for people to get the proper ID. Predicting that folks who put this off for 19 months and 3 weeks will have sob stories about them in the newspaper.


You Magnificent Bastard, you took the words right outta my mouth.

On the other hand, Garage Mahal and madisonfella will be along shortly, after they check the MMFA website for approved talking points, to provide sob stories preemptively

BarrySanders20 said...

How long before the first story in the national press about how Scott Walker survived recall and then was reelected under dubious circumstances through repression of the minority vote via Wisconsin's harsh voter ID law?

I'm Full of Soup said...

I will bet $100 that a new lawsuit will be filed and it will forestall the Voter ID rule until past the 2016 election.

Bobber Fleck said...

There will be blood in the streets and the entire state will be like the gunfight at the OK corral.

Ooops, wrong topic. That was concealed carry.

Let me try again: There will be thousands of poor, disadvantaged, elderly, handicapped, minority, transgender womyn who will be denied their right to vote for the Progressives of their choice.

Gahrie said...

How can you have mandatory voting without some form of voter ID?

PB said...

How can a senator who missed 300+ roll call votes have the stones/idiocy to call for mandatory voting?

Simon said...

There's a hint of mischief to Posner's intervention in the case, and one wonders whether the justices didn't just find the whole business sordid.

hawkeyedjb said...

Here in Arizona, we have another ID issue: the state opted not to meet all the requirements of the federal "REAL ID" law, so our drivers licenses will not be valid for airplane travel starting next January.

Lefties down here are not complaining that the ID law is onerous - they say Arizona should just get with the program, submit, conform, obey, etc.

Lefties want to make it real easy to vote - no ID required - but they don't have a problem with requiring everyone to get their license renewed to ride on a plane. The logical conclusion is that lefties hate black people and don't want to have to sit next to them on airplanes.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can't help but notice the refusal comes 2 weeks before the spring election period (April 7th) in WI. The cynic in me suspects the Supreme Court doesn't care about the timing, so long as it doesn't affect a federal election."

What happens to the cynic in you when you learn that the ID requirement will not apply in that election?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Finally

Michael K said...

Awww.

I predict this group will require a "safe room" after the verdict.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

As it will go in PA too. Landmark Legal Foundation has spent more than two years trying to find even ONE person for whom the voter ID requirement was too onerous. There isn't one person in PA who couldn't obtain a photo ID to vote. Not one. Now we do know there are precincts that enjoy over 100% participation of "registered voters" around Philly so I'll leave it to the genius mathminds of Madison -- MM and Garage -- to explain how both of these things can be true.

Anonymous said...

The cynic in me suspects the Supreme Court doesn't care about the timing

Atty Gen for WI says it won't be in effect for this spring election.

Good on him.






Fen said...

Lazy ass low information voters hit hardest.

I guess the Dems will just have to count on importing millions of illegal aliens and promising them "free" stuff in exchange for perpetual depend- er... votes.

Where's Garage and his gang of libtards? Delicious tears I want.

Anonymous said...

There will be thousands of poor, disadvantaged, elderly, handicapped, minority, transgender womyn who will be denied their right to vote for the Progressives of their choice.

More than thousands actually. Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote. And given the way the Republicans slashed the DMV hours statewide (only one office in the entire state is open on a Sat) it could be difficult for a lot of those people to get the GOP-Approved Documentation.

For the record, I am not against IDs in general. Montana has a reasonable Voter ID law and I have no qualms with it at all. But this Wisconsin law, combined with other actions taken by the WI-GOP, shows that their true intent is to hinder those who they fear will vote against their party.

The founding father of the conservative movement, Paul Weyrich, flat-out said he doesn't want everybody to vote and the Republicans in WI passed this law to help further that goal.

Hyphenated American said...

"Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote. "

But is there any evidence that all these 300,000 are actually alive and live in Wisconsin, and are legally allowed to vote?

Drago said...

madisonfella: "The founding father of the conservative movement, Paul Weyrich, flat-out said he doesn't want everybody to vote and the Republicans in WI passed this law to help further that goal."

LOL

Yeah, Paul Weyrich is the founding father of the conservative movement.

You might want to look start with Burke and continue on to Russell Kirk.

Weyrich was instrumental in setting up some of the mechanisms of the modern conservative movement but that in no way should credit him with identifying or becoming an articulate conveyor of the foundational principles of the conservative movement(s). Movement(s) because like any other political movement it has gone thru several phases.

Drago said...

madisonfella: "But this Wisconsin law..."


But this constitutional Wisconsin law...

chickelit said...

BarrySanders20 said...
How long before the first story in the national press about how Scott Walker survived recall and then was reelected under dubious circumstances through repression of the minority vote via Wisconsin's harsh voter ID law?

It wasn't in effect then either.

Drago said...

chickelit: "It wasn't in effect then either"

Why would that stop the left from pretending it was?

Fen said...

"Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote. "

Here's the list of affected people:

1) Big Bird
2) John Lennon
3) L33T Gamer
4) Big Bird
5) Big Bird Jr
6) Big Bird III
7) L33T Lennon
etc

Fen said...

MadisonShill said: "their true intent is to hinder those who they fear will vote against their party."

Oh bullshit. Why don't you just admit you are against voter ID so you can cheat Democracy.

Everyone already knows. So drop the "oh the poor people!" act.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just admit you are against voter ID

If you weren't so blind with rage you would have seen I just said that I am not against IDs in general. Montana has a reasonable Voter ID law and I have no qualms with it at all

The Republicans in WI could have drafted a reasonable law as well, but instead they decided to stack the deck even more then they already have.

When the DMV puts out a memo instructing their workers that they aren't allowed to tell people a free ID for voting is available, unless that person mentions it first, then the intentions are pretty damn obvious.

gadfly said...

The court was right not to hear the Wisconsin case. It amazes me that the earlier Indiana ruling didn't directly result in the dismissal of all of the smoke and mirrors presented by the Jackass party.

If a person of color cannot secure a bottle of beer, buy a pack of cigarettes, enter a public building or even obtain government aid to the poor - without first showing a valid ID - what makes voting law special?

"No proof of identity, no service" is and has been the first rule of commerce for some time.

Fen said...

MadisonShill: "If you weren't so blind with rage you would have seen I just said that I am not against IDs in general"

Yah. Bullshit. Your entire "disenfranchise the poor" meme is disingenuous. Ergo you have ZERO credibility.

And that's not even considering your history of dishonesty on this blog.

You know where you can put your concern trolling.

David said...

"Observers" are "surprised" when "things" do not go their way.

Anonymous said...

Fen's Law #34 - Argue with straw men rather than what was actually said.

Fen's Law #52 - Be sure to constantly accuse those you disagree with of constant dishonesty.

Fen's Law #78 - When one of your opponents go off the script you have pre-planned in your head then accuse them of lying about their own opinion. Refer to Law #34 for further instructions.

Anonymous said...

If a person of color cannot secure a bottle of beer, buy a pack of cigarettes, enter a public building or even obtain government aid to the poor - without first showing a valid ID - what makes voting law special?

What makes the Wisconsin Voter ID law different than the other things you mention is that the documents required for voting is very limited compared to the acceptable IDs for the other things you mention. If ID is even required at all; the corner liquor store isn't going to card a regular customer whose been buying beer and cigs there for the past 20 years.

Not just those items either. Compared to other Voter ID laws in other states Wisconsin is more restrictive. Compare Montana's requirements to Wisconsin and you'll see that the difference is in the details.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for any laws that make it a little more difficult to vote.

I don't like it when lazy, disinterested people vote. Means they don't think about their vote, or care all that much.

We ought to have an informed electorate. We should even raise the age of voting to 21.

I've never understood this desire that everyone should vote. Have you watched Jay Leno?

MadisonMan said...

Lefties want to make it real easy to vote - no ID required - but they don't have a problem with requiring everyone to get their license renewed to ride on a plane.

Do you understand the difference between a commercial enterprise and the Government?

jr565 said...

Madisonman it would be the same premise thoug. And very likely the same ID.

Cornroaster said...

I am probably one of those 300.000 who may be registered to vote in WI and don't have the proper ID. The reason? I moved to Florida 18 months ago, and now hold a FL drivers license and am registered to vote here. My name is still probably on WI voter lists (I still got phone robocalls from both parties in November 2014 at my FL phone # which had calls forwarded from my old WI number.) I am glad that no one will be able to use my old registration to vote.

jr565 said...

Madisonfella wrote:
hat makes the Wisconsin Voter ID law different than the other things you mention is that the documents required for voting is very limited compared to the acceptable IDs for the other things you mention. If ID is even required at all; the corner liquor store isn't going to card a regular customer whose been buying beer and cigs there for the past 20 years.

how about the people they don't know Thet well who look like the could be underage? What if they hired a new cashier and he/she is not as fsmiliar with the locals?

Sofa King said...


If you weren't so blind with rage you would have seen I just said that I am not against IDs in general. Montana has a reasonable Voter ID law and I have no qualms with it at all


Consider for a moment, then, that perhaps you were not well-served by the absolute refusal of the previous Democratic administrations to pass even such reasonable regulations as you would have no qualms with, leaving the more restrictive proposal the only one in contention.

jr565 said...

Sofa King, Exactly! Voter ID is the law in many states and there is no evidence that there is voter suppression because of it. And the very idea that there would be is frankly racist. As if blacks are not capable of getting basic ID.
The whole argument is disingenuous from the left.
They aren't arguing rhat specific voter ID was are wrong, they are suggestion the very thought of asking for an ID is reprehensible and bigoted.

Lem said...

It wasn't in effect then either.

Too good to check... don't let the facts get in the way of a hatchet job.

Scott said...

Perhaps the Young, Gifted & Black group could hold workshops between now and the next election on how to go about getting proper ID.

chickelit said...

If a person of color cannot secure a bottle of beer, buy a pack of cigarettes, enter a public building or even obtain government aid to the poor - without first showing a valid ID - what makes voting law special?

Buying liquor and cigarettes is self-policed because the fines and potential loss of licensure. No one fines polling places if frauds vote. Voter privacy is so sacrosanct that fraud cannot even be detected.

Access to government buildings is policed because entrants put lawmakers in harm's way (this was tested in Madison recently by the City Council member who literally let anyone in without scrutiny).

Obtaining phony government aid is still scandal-worthy (though perhaps not for long).

Encouraging voter fraud helps approximately half of elected officials and they're hoping to grow their majority.

Bob Loblaw said...

More than thousands actually. Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote.

Heh. Yeah, most people call 'em "dead people and noncitizens."

Bob Loblaw said...

Sometimes we abbreviate "Democrats".

Rusty said...


If a person of color cannot secure a bottle of beer, buy a pack of cigarettes, enter a public building or even obtain government aid to the poor - without first showing a valid ID - what makes voting law special?

It makes it harder to bus people from polling place to polling place.

Rusty said...

Eric said...
More than thousands actually. Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote.

Heh. Yeah, most people call 'em "dead people and noncitizens."

It doesn't matter. They all vote Democrat.
And don't worry, Cornroaster. Your Wisconsin vote still counts.

Bobber Fleck said...

Right on cue: The La Crosse (WI) Tribune's Tuesday article on this topic features a picture of an elderly woman, whom we are to assume will somehow be disenfranchised.

Curious George said...

Imaginary black and old people hurt worse.

Curious George said...

"More than thousands actually. Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote."

Bullshit.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

It should have been named the "One Person, One Vote Assurance Act".

That's what it aims for. That's what's true about it.

Also makes it harder to oppose, as it correctly frames the true intent of the opposition.

MadisonMan said...

If you don't want to show your ID to fly, you are free to travel by some means other than flight. Some even prefer not flying.

You have no choice with elections for people who write laws to restrict you.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
If you don't want to show your ID to fly, you are free to travel by some means other than flight. Some even prefer not flying.

You have no choice with elections for people who write laws to restrict you."

This is moronic.

But how about employment. A photo ID is required for all jobs in the US.

SJ said...

@Madisonfella,

what were the DMV hours before they were slashed?

How many offices had Saturday hours?

How many of those offices are in major metropolitan areas?

Curious George said...

Now the left can move on to the suppression of blacks and the elderly in so many other areas of our society.

Employment, purchase of liquor, air travel,cbanking, food st ampos and other federal programs....

Wait, what?

Sorry blacks and the elderly, none for you.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

MadisonMan said...
If you don't want to show your ID to fly, you are free to travel by some means other than flight. Some even prefer not flying.

You have no choice with elections for people who write laws to restrict you.


Ever hear the old phrase "beggars can't be choosers"? What do you suppose that means?

It is intended to admonish those who will not work for a living, reminding them that, refusing to put out any effort, they forfeit the right to be picky. They get what they get. Don't like it? Make some effort.

So too, those who refuse to put out ANY effort to get ID, for any of the many doors ID opens in this society.

No effort? Guess you don't get to choose your representatives then. Your choice.

Curious George said...

"madisonfella said...
If you weren't so blind with rage you would have seen I just said that I am not against IDs in general. Montana has a reasonable Voter ID law and I have no qualms with it at all"

Montana has no real photo ID requirement.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Have not see it mentioned but how can the Wisconsin Attoreny General decide not enforce this law immediately? It is in effect and it is constitutional. There is no waiting period in the language of the law. Therefore, it must be enforced. Now.

This is the exact argument made by the administration to extend the Obamacare statutory deadlines. It's too complicated and might be harsh on some people, therefore, we will not enforce the clear and unambiguous law.
If the law is duly passed and it is constitutional, it must be equally enforced. Why is it that my vote can be cancelled out in one more election?

SGT Ted said...

Pretending that getting an ID is hard is just stupidity cubed.

raf said...

The Dem GOTV program has been highly effective, from all that I have heard. I cannot believe that they would refuse or be unable to organize to get valid ID for all those people whose V they are G-ing O. Unless the problem is the inability to get more than one ID ....

No matter, vote fraud is better pursued through absentee ballots, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Civil rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would use the Wisconsin case, Frank v. Walker, No. 14-803, to reconsider its 2008 decision

Just another example of how news reports are biased...
Not having one's legitimate vote negated by fraudsters is also a civil right. Why aren't the law's proponents described as civil rights groups too?
Does the NRA ever get branded as a civil rights group?

BJK said...

What happens to the cynic in you when you learn that the ID requirement will not apply in that election?

The cynic is placated; waiving the ID requirement does not appear to have been a condition of SCOTUS not taking up the case, but a decision by the new Wisconsin Atty. General Schimmel. (Not sure if that concession was raised in the arguments on cert, or his immediate reaction to the timing of the refusal to hear the case).

My issue is that the Supreme Court took extraordinary measures to prevent the law for going into effect immediately prior to a federal election, but has no such qualms about releasing their stay of enforcement immediately before a state election.

The decision of the Wis. AG to act responsibly in waiving voter ID requirements based on the timing of the thing does not change the reality that SCOTUS just created the exact scenario they intervened to avoid in the first place.

Bill said...

"The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was a surprise, as the court last year temporarily blocked the law for the November election, ..."
I don't see the reason for surprise. The Wisconsin and Texas stays last year, and the previous voter ID decision, showed that there were 3 justices who were okay with voter ID, 3 justices opposed, and 3 justices who were okay with it but whose higher priority was not changing election law immediately before an election.

irishguard said...

Basil said, "Have not see it mentioned but how can the Wisconsin Attoreny General decide not enforce this law immediately? It is in effect and it is constitutional."

He is fully in favor of enforcing the law, however, absentee ballots for the April 7 election have already been sent and since the process is underway, there is no way to effectively enforce the law until we have a clean run up to an election.

Bill said...

Livermoron: "Does the NRA ever get branded as a civil rights group?
"

You know how the ACLU counts to ten? 'One, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.'

Todd said...

madisonfella said... [hush]​[hide comment]
There will be thousands of poor, disadvantaged, elderly, handicapped, minority, transgender womyn who will be denied their right to vote for the Progressives of their choice.

More than thousands actually. Currently 300,000 people who are registered to vote in Wisconsin don't have the Republican-Approved Documentation in order to vote. And given the way the Republicans slashed the DMV hours statewide (only one office in the entire state is open on a Sat) it could be difficult for a lot of those people to get the GOP-Approved Documentation.

3/23/15, 6:31 PM


Good thing they have PLENTY of time to plan on how / when to get there so that they can get their free state issued ID, right?

Plenty of time for local organizations to organize van pools to help all those needed folks get to the DMV.

Plenty of time for all of the liberal organizations to actively notify everyone that they must have proper ID to vote and to help them obtain some.

So, there should be NO issues come next election, right? Right?

jameswhy said...

If i was in charge of PR for the Tea Party (assuming thatmonit it was a monolithic organization that neeeded PR) I would announce that my party would volunteer to assist any resident of my state who needed help getting a photo ID to vote. We'd get credit for being good citizens and there wouldn't be much actual work to do, since everyone already has photo IDs as we all know. And, of course, we'd have a chance to evangelize with a segment of the voting public that rarely gets to hear our spiel.

MadisonMan said...

A photo ID is required for all jobs in the US.

Right. Because all employees and employers follow the law.

If you want to follow the law, you can get (for example) editing jobs online. I've done that twice and I never had to prove who I was.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

MadisonMan said...
A photo ID is required for all jobs in the US.

Right. Because all employees and employers follow the law.

If you want to follow the law, you can get (for example) editing jobs online. I've done that twice and I never had to prove who I was.


I'm more interested in how you proved you were competent enough to be an editor.

Kirk Parker said...

"When the DMV puts out a memo instructing their workers that they aren't allowed to tell people a free ID for voting is available, unless that person mentions it first, then the intentions are pretty damn obvious. "

Good for them!

Agents for the state have absolutely NO business proselytizing for people to register to vote.


Someone,

Make that "One Person, At Most One Vote Assurance Act"!

MadisonMan said...

I'm more interested in how you proved you were competent enough to be an editor.

I did some editing for them. It's a pretty obvious way to screen people.

geokstr said...

I just reviewed the Montana voter ID page. Then I checked this wiki page to confirm my impression:
Voter ID laws in the United States

It's easy to see why madisonfella thinks MT voter ID law is reasonable. The wiki page groups the states into 5 levels on how strict their ID requirements are.

Surprise! Mt is in the group 2nd from the bottom, and the last level has no ID required at all at the polls in 17 states. I'll bet 95% of conservatives here could come up with almost the entire list of 17 from intuition alone in short order.

The MT law is full of loopholes. The absentee voting, where the real action is, has lots more. Absentee balloting should be tightened up next, big-time.

On top of all that, the voter rolls are bloated with the dead and those who now reside in another state.

MadisonMan said...

Wow, Montana must be all full of felonious voting.

Quick, pass a law to prevent that, all you Legislators in Helena!

We need more laws!

geokstr said...

I just reviewed the Montana voter ID page. Then I checked this wiki page to confirm my impression:
Voter ID laws in the United States

It's easy to see why madisonfella thinks MT voter ID law is reasonable because the wiki page groups the states into 5 levels on how strict their ID requirements are.

Surprise! MT's group is next to last, and the last level has no ID required at all at the polls in 17 states. I'll bet 95% of conservatives here could come up with almost the entire list of 17 from intuition alone in short order. (Hint: the color)

The MT law is full of loopholes. The absentee voting, where the real action is, has lots more. Absentee balloting should be tightened up next, big-time.

On top of all that, the voter rolls in all states are bloated with the dead and those who now reside in another state. Another surprise - Eric Holder has threatened those states who want to clean up their voter rolls!

Todd said...

MadisonMan said...
A photo ID is required for all jobs in the US.

Right. Because all employees and employers follow the law.

If you want to follow the law, you can get (for example) editing jobs online. I've done that twice and I never had to prove who I was.

3/24/15, 4:50 PM


Change employees and employers to "people" and you just made our case for requiring voter ID laws. Thanks.