"But is there anything else in your post that is true?"
It is all true. If you have any specific points in it that are not, I hope you will let me know, rather than just drop that bullshit turd in the punchbowl.
First, as to my subject line above, ID is already required in all 50 states when registering. Reasonable ID, as opposed to the very specific state-issued Photo ID that Republicans are attempting to require when voting because they know many legally registered (Dem-leaning) voters do not have it. Moreover, a majority of states already require ID when voting, and its no problem. But the ID required, like the ID when registering, is reasonable (Drivers license, pay stub, social security card, veterans ID, etc.) and doesn't serve to purposely disenfranchise.
"The law was passed in 2011. It was upheld last month when the appeals court accepted the appeal. ... It was in effect in other words for the last three weeks anyway."
The law was struck down by several state courts in 2013. It was re-written by the state Supreme Court a month or two ago, and those new rules were put in place about two weeks ago, and the DMV has said it will take at least 6 weeks to process anyone who does not have a birth certificate because they were born out of state, as is the case with about half of the legally registered minority voters in Milwaukee (as determined at trial last year before the law was struck down by the District Court at the beginning of this year). That is, if you can find a DMV open and can afford to get there on the two days a week that many are open.
Moreover, thousands of absentee ballots were sent out without the now-needed instruction that they must be returned with a photo copy of a state-issued Photo ID card.
But never mind all that...
"The TSA requires that you be identified."
So does voting. In all 50 states. Most of them require some form of ID to vote. See above. Not a problem It's only a problem when the specific TYPES of IDs are limited on purpose, in order disenfranchise voters.
"If they can't confirm your identity, you don't fly."
You do know that, unlike the privilege of flying, voting is a right, don't you?
"If all that is contained in the challenge is hyperbole and half truths, the law is going to stand. The Supreme Court knows that is all nonsense."
Huh? The challenge is fully accurate and confirmed via expert testimony though weeks of trial and a thorough 70 page ruling. The complete and demonstrable FALSEHOODS are contained in the 7th Circuit Court's ruling, as written by wingnut Judge Frank Easterbrook, that restored the illegal and unconstitutional law just weeks before the election (in violation of long-standing SCOTUS precendent and instruction known as Purcell). Not sure what "nonsense" you are referring to that the Supreme Court knows about, but they have made it clear they are willing to be an activist court and rewrite and/or kill legislation from the bench any time they like, as they did with the Voting Rights Act last year, and with the Ohio case last week.
"The argument should revolve around the 4th Amendment and be viewed as a unwarranted intrusion by the Government in an effort to disenfranchise and intimidate citizens when untrained volunteers demand to know who you are, and what ballot you want, especially for the primaries."
Feel free to bring any case you like. For now, your claims have nothing to do with the case at hand, which is based on violations of the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
"The undue burden argument won't go anywhere as free identification cards are provided IAW the 2008 Supreme Court decision."
The 2008 case (Crawford vs. Marion County) was a facial challenge. This is an as applied challenge, and the situation is nothing like the Indiana law or the Crawford challenge, even though Judge Easterbrook pretended that it was in his factually incorrect ruling.
Where 1% of voters in Crawford were believed to be w/o Photo IDs, and DMVs were plentiful and open all week in Indiana, some 10% of registered voters in Wisconsin (300,000 voters) are lacking the ID now needed to vote. The case is nothing like Crawford, no matter how much wingnut Easterbrook -- and you -- try to fit a square peg into a round hole in hopes that Roberts and Kennedy will also defy their own precedent and vote to save Walker from losing his election by disenfranchising Badger State voters.
Your attempt to misinform folks here is impressive. You should clerk for 7th Circuit or intern for Scott Walker...if you don't already.
= new reply since forum marked as read
