Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 30, 2014

A federal judge struck down Wisconsin's voter identification law Tuesday, declaring that a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman also ruled that the law appeared too flawed to fix with legislative amendments. "(V)irtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," Adelman wrote in a 90-page opinion, "and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future." Election Law Blog reports, "This is about the best possible opinion that opponents of voter identification laws could have hoped for. ... It is about as strong a statement as one might imagine as to the problems the voter ID law."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

et_al

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The judge purports to apply Crawford, but reaches a different result. It is not clear that this is a fair application of that test–which seems to suggest at most that the law be upheld as to most voters but create an "as applied" exemption for a specific class of voters. The judge said that this was not practical in this case given the large number of Wisconsin voters who lack id. It is not clear that the appellate courts will agree."

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"On the VRA issue, this is the first full ruling on how to adjudicate voter id vote denial cases under section 2."

It will be interesting to see how this first case influences the pending cases in Texas and North Carolina.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am sorry to inform y'all, this decision will not stand, the conservatives will, of course, take it all the way to the SC if necessary where the decision has already been made. That I can say that with confidence tells us much about the corporate five and their actual respect for the Constitution or justice. I, like the growing numbers of Americans have little faith that justice will be served by the corporate five, they are predictable and dispicable....and yes, I did predict their decision on Obamacare though I didn't predict their undermining the Medicaid expansion, which was pretty clever on Robert's part, IMHO. He was able to approve ACA but undermine its benefits for millions of the working poor.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

One could easily predict the vote and who voted how. 5-4.

#4 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-04-29 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am referring to danni's post if this goes to the Supreme court.

#5 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-04-29 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

[W]here the decision has already been made.

What is that decision and the rationale for it?

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guess these same people will not be required to show ID to cash a check, get govt benefits, etc.

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-04-29 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Expect the Wisconsoin AG to appeal. From what I am hearing, it is unlikely that a ruling on the appeal would be ready by Novembers election.

Also if the State Supreme Court decides that the law passed is ok under the state constitution, the state still will not be able to enforce the law till the federal appeal is over.

#8 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2014-04-29 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

What? Restricting voting rights is against the Constitution?

I'm shocked.

#9 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-04-30 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I am sorry to inform y'all, this decision will not stand,"

I was going to post exactly that but Danni beat me to it.
So call her racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic and such instead of me for the crime of being truthful.

#10 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-04-30 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"I was going to post exactly that but Danni beat me to it.
So call her racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic and such instead of me for the crime of being truthful."...Diablo

She is not the things you are, Diablo, regardless of her opinion on this particular case.

#11 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-04-30 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4

so stupid, need an ID for cigarettes, alcohol, bank account, credit card, cash a check, rent movies, etc...

But to vote, no, we trust you, because humans never cheat, lie, and steal.

#12 | Posted by danv at 2014-04-30 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can we get rid of the ID requirement for a firearm too? That's also a constitutional right.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-04-30 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"so stupid, need an ID for cigarettes, alcohol, bank account, credit card, cash a check, rent movies, etc..."
#12 | Posted by danv

Point out to me in the U.S. Constitution where any of those things are "rights"....

#14 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-04-30 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Fail whale has swallowed walker.

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2014-04-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wisconsin AG says the decision will be appealed.

"There doesn't have to be evidence of voter fraud. That the governor and the Legislature, elected by the people to make these policy decisions can say the appearance of voter fraud can cause people who are lawfully entitled to vote to not vote -- that actually suppresses their right to vote," Van Hollen said.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, that's quite the argument. The false perception of voter fraud is causing people not to vote.

I suppose the AG's argument is the false perception that false voter fraud is being fought will restore their confidence?

Is there any place for empirical evidence in this discussion? Apparently not.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is when the issue is most political that the reasons for a given decision are least judicious.

#19 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-04-30 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, that's quite the argument.

Yeah, it is. Remember Crawford and what it has to say on the necessity of voter fraud on the validity of voter ID?

Is there any place for empirical evidence in this discussion?

Sure, both the existence of in person voter fraud and vote suppression from voter ID are negligible, less than 0.005% iirc.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 07:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The hardships for the elderly to get these IDs are greatly underestimated by most people who have never had to get copies of birth certificates issued 75 years ago in different states considering that often, to get a copy of your birth certificate, you need the ID that you're trying to get. Many old people have lived in the same place for decades, they know the people who work at the polls by their first names and have known them for decades but Wisconsin doesn't want to allow that recognition which has existed for decades to mean anything. The Republicans in Wisconsin, as the court says, are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and coincidentally disenfranchising thousands of voters who are, coincidentally, Democrats.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-30 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep. Though that latter figure is due to what I think is your constricted definition of what "suppression from voter ID" means.

In that vein, the AG seems to be suggesting "suppression from lack of voter ID."

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am sorry to inform y'all, this decision will not stand, the conservatives will, of course, take it all the way to the SC if necessary where the decision has already been made.

At least you're smart enough to know it won't stand. It won't even need to go to the SC; the Seventh Circuit will unanimously reverse this pathetic ruling.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2014-04-30 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

The hardships for the elderly to get these IDs...

I agree and think people born prior to modern birth records, or otherwise simply cannot get those documents, should be grandfathered.

That said, according to the Court, "...absentee voters who are elderly, infirm or disabled and indefinitely confined to the their homes or certain care facilities, Wis. Stat. §§ 6.86(2),6.875..." are exempt.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Though that latter figure is due to what I think is your constricted definition of what "suppression from voter ID" means.

Why concern yourself with my definition, the researchers provide their own definitions. You wanted to empirical information, I gave it then you want to jump on me. Make up your damn mind.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Regardless, of whether it is upheld or not it shoots a big hole in the myth that voter impersonation is or will become a problem in Wisconsin.

So it is a Republican solution looking for a problem that does not exist.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

to

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

So it is a Republican solution looking for a problem that does not exist.

Which part of a problem need not exist, according to Crawford for a legislature to constitutionally enact voter ID do you not get?

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

You wanted to empirical information, I gave it then you want to jump on me. Make up your damn mind.
#25 | Posted by et_al

The data definition of "vote suppression from voter ID" would be informative here.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

DNC rejoices!

#30 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-04-30 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Et,

While your understanding of the decisions text, the parties arguments and precedent is arguably correct, what comes through clearly in the Judge Adelmans opinion is a truth that the spirit of the law is more important letter of the law.

#31 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2014-04-30 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which part of a problem need not exist, according to Crawford for a legislature to constitutionally enact voter ID do you not get?

#28 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Baby steps Al.

So do are we agreed that the problem that this legislation is specifically designed to fix does not exist and will not become a problem for the foreseeable future in Wisconsin?

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

do

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry. My kindle...argh

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

hope this kills the underscores.

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2014-04-30 10:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

strike-throughs - but hey, it worked at least...

#37 | Posted by YAV at 2014-04-30 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

...the Seventh Circuit will unanimously reverse this pathetic ruling.
Posted by JOE

I don't know about unanimous, didn't Posner walk back his Crawford opinion? Maybe he'll recuse because of that.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

...the spirit of the law is more important letter of the law.
#31 | Posted by SLBronkowitz

The spirit of the law regarding the constitutionality of voter ID is embodied in the Crawford opinion.

In the charitable words of Rick Hassen, an ardent opponent of voter ID, "...the judge purports to apply the "Anderson-Burdick" balancing test that the Supreme Court applied in upholding Indiana's voter id law in the Crawford case. The judge purports to apply Crawford, but reaches a different result. It is not clear that this is a fair application of that test–which seems to suggest at most that the law be upheld as to most voters but create an "as applied" exemption for a specific class of voters. The judge said that this was not practical in this case given the large number of Wisconsin voters who lack id. It is not clear that the appellate courts will agree." electionlawblog.org

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

So do[sic] are we agreed...

I'm certain that we can agree that what I wrote at 20 and 28 is true. I won't agree to a partisan framing of the issue.

#40 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-30 11:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Same source,

"would seem to put a number of electoral processes which burden poor and minority voters up for possible VRA liability."

And only fifty short years after the Voting Right Act!

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet there is no problem applying for an EBT card or free cell phones.

In Massachusetts they are getting rid of toll booth collectors. If you want to ride on a toll road you will need an EZ-Pass. How can the Liberal Governor (Mini Me) Deval Patrick expect all the old people, illegals, and welfare recipients to get a credit card and apply for an EZ-Pass? I guess the state will just leave a bucket of EZ-Pass transponders on every street corner and count on the honor system. Hey maybe they can link them to one of their EBT cards!
But please don't make them get a voter Id.

#42 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-04-30 11:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

But please don't make them get a voter Id.
#42 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST

You can't tell the difference between a Constitutionally protected right and entitlements? Interesting. Sad, yet interesting nonetheless.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-01 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

You can't tell the difference between a Constitutionally protected right and entitlements? Interesting. Sad, yet interesting nonetheless.#43 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

You mean like enforced Healthcare?

Or are you talking about the second amendment?

Either way the argument in the last 40 post was baised on inconvenience not the Constitution.
And in the "constitution" tell me where non Citizens are allowed to vote.

#44 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why are you afraid of proof of being a legal voter to be able to vote?
You should be pissed you have to apply for a gun permit!

#45 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 12:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

And in the "constitution" tell me where non Citizens are allowed to vote.
#44 | Posted by Federalist

That's up to the states.
Funny that a guy named "Federalist" doesn't know what's in the Constitution.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
That is why the "States" can have voter ID.

You answered 1/3 of my questions.

#47 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 01:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me were enforced Healthcare is in the Constitution.

#48 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 01:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Last time I checked Wisconsin was a state.

#49 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your Village misses you.

#50 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another democrat judge says blacks and latinos are too stupid or poor to get a photo I.D. What's this judge gonna say if Wisconsin decides to pay for the I.D.?

Personally I say lets just use thumbprints which can be ran through a database.

#51 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-05-01 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

A Democrat judge appointed by Bill Clinton!

#53 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-05-01 04:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's your po' folks unable to go get an ID:
www.peopleofwalmart.com

#54 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-01 04:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Tell me were enforced Healthcare is in the Constitution.
#48 | Posted by Federalist

It's right next to "Air Force."

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 05:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Et, by spirit I was referring to the intent of the law. In this case to disenfranchise legitimate voters.

#56 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2014-05-01 06:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"A Democrat judge appointed by Bill Clinton!"-MCMLCXX

Also a judge, who when nominated, was strongly supported by then Republican Governor Tommy Thompson and State Senator Mike Ellis. The same Senator Ellis who was recently video taped on by a hidden camera by James O'Keefe. Their reason for supporting Adelman for the Federal Bench? His departure helped reduced the then Democratic edge in the state senate.

#57 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2014-05-01 06:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is good news for the thousands of Illinois Dems that flood our border each election.

This mindset of "places an unfair burden on poor and minority voters" is just too crazy to comprehend. How can anyone in this century function without an ID?

#58 | Posted by Gr8Music at 2014-05-01 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I have had this discussion before GR8 I have used the same bank, pharmacy etc. for years. I almost never have to show ID. In the past year I have needed photo ID maybe 3 times.

My blind disabled mother-in-law has needed it even less. In fact the last time she needed it was when she started a company a bit over 2 years ago prior to that her ID had expired in 2002 so that is almost 10 years with no ID. When she needed it she had to run through hoops to get it and it was a lengthy process that she could not have completed without my help.

In essence I don't have an issue with voter ID but this line about how everyone needs it to get by is just plain wrong and honestly does more harm to the voter ID argument than help.

#59 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-05-01 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor, dead, illegal, and minority voters."

Whew... those dead people are free to vote without fear.

#60 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-01 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"To apply for a welfare program one must contact the local Human Service Department located in the government pages of the phone book. It may be listed as Human Services, Family Services or Adult and Family Services. An appointment is made with a case worker. The case worker will give a list of required documents needed at the appointment. Common documents asked for are proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency."

Gee.. that seems to restrict those that are poor doesn't it? I think it's an unfair burden. How are these poor people going to get Welfare without having ID?

#61 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-01 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you're prepared to accept utility bills as valid voter I'D?
No you are not.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So you're prepared to accept utility bills as valid voter I'D?
No you are not."

Zingo... missed the point by a mile. I expect nothing less.

#63 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-01 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'll also accept pay stubs as voter ID?

Here's the real question that never gets addressed in this "voter ID" nonsense:
Currently, the Secretary of State of each state maintains voter rolls of eligible voters.
Should we get rid of those and just accept the photo ID as sufficient?
If not, then what's the point of the photo ID? It's just another hoop voters have to jump through. The state already knows who the eligible voters are; that's the whole point of the voter rolls.

I suppose an argument can be made that I'll show up and pretend to be some other registered voter in some other precinct. Of course, if that person shows up before me, it will raise suspicions when I try to sign for their ballot. So I go early, and then when they come to vote suspicions get raised on them. This is certainly a possibility. It's just not one that we hear happening. Which leads me to think voter ID is solving a problem that doesn't exist.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Point out to me in the U.S. Constitution where any of those things are "rights"....

#14 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-04-30 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag

There is no explicit right to vote, so keep making things up because they sound good.

#65 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-01 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no explicit right to vote...

True but it is certainly implicit and is recognized as a fundamental constitutional right by the Supreme Court.

So, keep making things up because they sound good.

#66 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-01 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no evidence of voter fraud. We don't need to check IDs.... but global warming is real.. yup yup ... it replaced the alien theories as the latest craze...

but... people are honest.. no one would vote twice.. no one would lie... we don't need to check ID's.

And now a word from our sponsor: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...."

Hey.. come to the "Mass Moral March" against voter id.. Be sure to bring your ID or you can't get in.

#67 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-01 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the real question that never gets addressed in this "voter ID" nonsense:
Currently, the Secretary of State of each state maintains voter rolls of eligible voters.
Should we get rid of those and just accept the photo ID as sufficient?

No, registration and rolls serve a distinct purpose, identifying the precinct, district, etc. in which the voter is eligible to cast a ballot, among others.

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-01 08:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, registration and rolls serve a distinct purpose, identifying the precinct, district, etc. in which the voter is eligible to cast a ballot, among others.

#68 | Posted by et_al

I know this, and you know this.
I don't think the DR right-wingers convinced that our elections are being stolen by Democrats because we don't have voter ID knows this.

Regardless, the district info could be gleaned from the address on the voter ID.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

None of the following seems to be racist or a hurdle for people to use their ID's, yet to require a person prove who they are to vote is racist or is a hurdle? Odd. When people claim voter ID is inherently racist, what you really mean is you believe that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID or find a way to afford a ID to vote and yet it is required they show proof when they are applying for public assistance. Also that apparently they have no social security card or birth certificate.

Adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun

obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

#70 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-05-02 05:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

the argument that is constantly brought up that no one should be forced to show an ID to exercise a constitutionally protected right, yet I'm required under federal law to show proof of ID when purchasing a firearm and last I checked that's a constitutionally protected right. So it's okay to put restrictions on some Constitutionally protect the rights but others, got it. Selectively picking an choosing what rights are set in stone and others are fair game to be picked at if they you dont agree with them.

#71 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-05-02 05:29 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Again the majority of those same liberals who view any voter ID requirement to vote is too burdensome, wrong and or racist. They somehow believe universal background checks should be the law of the land for I or anyone else wanting to exercise my constitutionaly protected right That I must show proof of ID, fill out a federal questionnaire, have waiting periods, background checks on ammunition and magazines no matter if it is a private sell, a dealer, or given to a family member is perfectly ok for restrictions on owing a firearm, yet for a person to show a state issued ID for what is needed for dozens of daily activities is way too much.

#72 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-05-02 05:42 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

.. a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters.

And not ONE is a Repub. Warm up the buses...

#73 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-05-02 08:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

It's just common sense to request ID to vote. Why are the Dems so opposed to it? ( because they think they can get more votes that way )

#74 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-02 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

None of the following seems to be racist or a hurdle for people to use their ID's,

They already use their ID to register to vote.

#75 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

They already use their ID to register to vote.

Citation needed.

#76 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-02 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort