Appeals court upholds voter ID law

[Archae]

Source: WISN-TV

MADISON, Wis. —A Wisconsin law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls is constitutional, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

The 4th District Court of Appeals decision stems from a lawsuit the League of Women Voters filed challenging the mandate. The league argued the law violates the Wisconsin Constitution's explicit language on every person's right to vote. Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess sided with the league in March 2012, ruling the requirement would disenfranchise voters who lack the resources to obtain photo identification.

The appeals court reversed his decision, concluding the league failed to show the mandate amounts to an additional qualification to vote and failed to show the law is unconstitutional on its face.


Read more: http://www.wisn.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-voter-id-law/-/9373668/20358308/-/isxkxf/-/index.html#ixzz2UogmERIE

---

Just great.

[otohara]

1. Bastards n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

2. THIS IS STILL WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTION. Registration card should be enough and it costs nothing.

[Archae]

3. Exactly. "Voter fraud" is a fraud.

A fraud to keep "the wrong people" from voting.

[MADem]

14. I don't even have to show a registration card.

You'd think, if they require registration cards, they would just slap a picture on them when they hand them out--problem solved.

I identify myself by giving my address, then my name.

I don't provide any ID at all.

[The Wielding Truth]

18. Yep, I wondered why they issue cards then never ask for them. A picture at the time would be easy.

[csziggy]

36. With the "Motor Voter" law it'd be easy to have picture ID voter cards

Since so many people now register to vote at driver license offices, they already have the machines in place.

Until Florida passed their voter ID law, I never had to show my voter card, same as you. I'd always put it in my pocket just in case, but never had to pull it out. Now I just shove the voter card and my driver's license in - but if I'm feeling ornery, I refuse to show the DL. They make me fill out an affidavit and let me vote with no problem. They've never even told me to come to the election office with an ID later, just accepted my signature.

[Pharaoh]

4. criminal bastards

have taken over our beautiful state.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Fine.

Pro-actively issue ID's to all residents at taxpayer expense.

(Note I said RESIDENTS not citizens.)
I hear they like taxes.

[rhett o rick]

10. That would help a little but having to show id gives the polling people the

power to deny the authenticity of the id. The decision if you can vote will be up to a poll worker. "That picture doesnt look like you."

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Then you fill out a provisional ballot and challenge their bullshit.

Edit; I do mean, that once they have to pay for it, conservatives will object. Then, it becomes unconstitutional. A clear poll tax.

They can't have it both ways.

[rhett o rick]

40. I am saying that requiring id to vote should be challenged to the SCOTUS. nm

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I'm neutral on it IF

the ID is freely provided by the state or federal government to the residents that need to vote.

Having state issued ID seems like it should be a freebie and a given for any resident, that is simple and easy to attain.
At the moment, it is none of those things, so I feel the requirement for voting ought to be unconstitutional. it makes voting a very high bar, and a considerable monetary investment to accomplish.

There is, apparently, at least one challenge pending. So this fight is not lost.

[rhett o rick]

42. I understand the logic but requiring ID will reduce voter turnout.

It certainly wont boost it. What percentage will lose their ID's? What percentage will have the ID challenged either honestly or dishonestly. It's just one more impediment to voting. It is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. But I don't want Republicans double-voting.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002144006_deadvoters06m.html

[blackspade]

6. and how is it not an additional qualification?

Terrible decision.

[SoapBox]

9. Ditto. And if the state is going to impose this additional qualification then

the state should be made to provide the identification for free...AND, it needs to be made EASY and convenient for those that are legal to vote, to get that ID.

The state cannot just say, well, get it at DMV and then restrict where those offices are and
the hours that they operate...that adds an even bigger burden.

Nice how the court apparently ignored the elderly, disabled, those that never learned to drive, etc...but
they all have the right to vote.

GRRRRRR.

Just my 2 cents.

[LiberalFighter]

34. And don't charge for the birth certificates needed to obtain the id.

And provide gas money or postage to obtain the id.

[Iliyah]

7. And once everybody has the ID

then the the GOPers will figure out another way to stop people from voting. It is an neverending effect to quash people's voting right.

[rhett o rick]

11. See my post 10 above. nm

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. We need a constitutional amendment for the right to vote.

[rhett o rick]

12. Agreed. nm

[BlueCaliDem]

24. Yes. More now than ever in our history. eom

[EC]

13. Still another case to go

so it's still not the law.

[Indyfan53]

16. WHY DID WE SIT OUT IN 2010?!

Anyone who tries to sit out in 2014 deserves to have their ass kicked into a voting booth.

[BlueDemKev]

17. When you find out, let me know.

ROCK THE VOTE, 2014!!!

[Indyfan53]

21. Hell yeah!

[BlueCaliDem]

25. Rock the vote 2014! Boot the Republicans OUT. eom

[former9thward]

22. We didn't sit out 2010.

There has been no analysis that has shown Democrats did not vote in 2010. In 2010 Indies went Republican. That is why the results turned out like they did.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. Young Voter Turnout Fell 60% from 2008 to 2010; Dems Won't Win in 2012 If the Trend Continues

Everyone knows that young voters were less enthused about the 2010 midterm elections than they were about the 2008 presidential election, when their votes powered Barack Obama to a landslide victory and gave Democrats big boosts in Congressional contests. But detailed studies of the election reveal that the decline in voting by Americans aged 18 to 29 was actually more serious than initially imagined.

In 2008, polls showed that young people were overwhelmingly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. And they turned out in droves. According to the research group CIRCLE—The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement—which tracks civic engagement among young voters, 51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year.

In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.

CIRCLE director Peter Levine said, "For liberal students, this election felt, at best, as a defensive move, protecting a Congress they don’t like that much."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues#ixzz2UpZ2dps1

If this happens in 2014, the Republicans will gain.

[former9thward]

28. You can't compare Presidential elections with mid-terms.

In midterms voter turnout for both parties drops by at least 1/3 and sometimes more. The very same thing will happen in 2014 just as it did in 2010, 2006, 2002, etc. Nothing can be done to stop that. We need to work on the Indies to prevent 2010. Young people for the most part only vote in presidential election years. That is just the way it is. I live in a college town where there are 80,000 registered voters who are college students out of about a total of 101,000 registered voters. The median age of voters in local elections is 65!

[Indyfan53]

30. Tell them that republicans want to double student loan interest rates

That will motivate them to vote.

[BlueDemKev]

29. Excuse me???

In Wisconsin alone, Tom Barrett received about 600,000 votes less than Barack Obama did in '08, while Scott Walker received about 100,000 votes less than John McCain did.

The Democrats sat on their asses complaining that Barack Obama wasn't liberal enough while the Rethugs were fired up, red hot, and ready.

We can NEVER let this happen again!

[former9thward]

31. Look at turn out in EVERY mid term and compare it with Presidential years.

It goes down EVERY midterm. It will go down in 2014 compared to 2012. Look at the facts and maybe you won't be banging your head on a wall.

[BlueDemKev]

32. We have to make it a point to vote in EVERY election...presidential and midterms.

It's the only way we will consistently defeat the right-wingers. Yes, overall turnout was down in 2010, but it was much further down on our side of the fence.

[Selatius]

37. That's because Democrats weren't fired up by racism and corporate propaganda like Republicans.

It's kind of hard to defeat the enthusiasm of the Tea Party when it's animated by the kind of stupidity that ignores reason. The fact that Obama was a black man got a good chunk of the Republican base to vote, and the mistaken notion that Obama was also a Muslim got even more of them out to vote.

The stimulus package was a good deal, and it did receive broad support. The health insurance law with a Public Option was broadly supported in polls run at the time until idiots like Baucus and other right-wing Democrats torpedoed the Public Option in Senate negotiations. Then, the Bush tax cuts were extended in exchange for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance. In both, liberals did gnash their teeth.

The problem in the Senate is that there were insufficient numbers of Democrats to enact the kind of changes on the scale of LBJ or FDR. Obama came into the poker game with far weaker cards. He didn't have enough liberal Democrats to push through that scale of change. If he were working with the New Deal Senate/House that passed into law Social Security, things would've been different.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. The youth vote, ages 18-29, dropped 60% between 2008 and 2010.

Everyone knows that young voters were less enthused about the 2010 midterm elections than they were about the 2008 presidential election, when their votes powered Barack Obama to a landslide victory and gave Democrats big boosts in Congressional contests. But detailed studies of the election reveal that the decline in voting by Americans aged 18 to 29 was actually more serious than initially imagined.

In 2008, polls showed that young people were overwhelmingly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. And they turned out in droves. According to the research group CIRCLE—The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement—which tracks civic engagement among young voters, 51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year.

In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.

CIRCLE director Peter Levine said, "For liberal students, this election felt, at best, as a defensive move, protecting a Congress they don’t like that much."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues#ixzz2UpZ2dps1

We need to get those lazy younguns to vote in the upcoming election.

[edhopper]

19. Maybe constitutional for the WI State Constitution

but not the US Constitution. It will go to a Fed court and hopefully repealed.

[24601]

45. This fundamentals for this issue have already been decided and federal precedent was set.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

[AAO]

20. Born, raised, lived my whole life in Wisconsin - I can hardly believe what we've become.

[BlueDemKev]

23. Cheer Up

At least Wisconsin has voted Democratic in the last seven (7) presidential elections.

[AAO]

46. Thanks, BDK, I needed that!

[BlueDemKev]

47. Not even Illinois, Vermont, or California has done that!

On Wisconsin!!

[AAO]

48. You know I appreciate your cheers! I can't believe we couldn't recall Walker!

[BlueDemKev]

50. Recalls are always tough.

The fact is, too many progressives and union members didn't bother to vote on Nov. 2, 2010. We can never, ever sit out an election. Our voting base must be galvanized in midterms as well as presidential election years.

[happyslug]

33. Here is the actual opinion

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97504

Here is the MOST important statement by the Court:

As a preliminary matter, we note that a separate constitutional challenge to the photo identification requirement created in Act 23 is currently pending in a different district of this court before another panel of judges, in a case that has been litigated somewhat differently. See Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker, No. 2012AP1652 (District II). We highlight from the outset that the case before us involves a purely facial constitutional challenge based on Article III of the state constitution, and not an as-applied constitutional challenge based on any state or federal constitutional provision.[2] There are fundamental differences between facial and as-applied constitutional claims.

A party may challenge a law … as being unconstitutional on its face. Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that the law cannot be enforced “under any circumstances.” If a challenger succeeds in a facial attack on a law, the law is void “from its beginning to the end.” In contrast, in an as-applied challenge, we assess the merits of the challenge by considering the facts of the particular case in front of us, “not hypothetical facts in other situations.” Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that his or her constitutional rights were actually violated. If a challenger successfully shows that such a violation occurred, the operation of the law is void as to the party asserting the claim.

Also read the end note on the above section:

In challenging the same 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 provisions, the plaintiffs in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker, No. 2012AP1652 (District II), make arguments not made here. In particular, they argue that judicial review of Act 23 requires heightened scrutiny, and they appear to rely on due process and equal-protection-based arguments. Plaintiffs there also make fact-based arguments that the League does not make here. For example, the plaintiffs in the District II case argue that they have demonstrated as a factual matter that enforcement of Act 23’s provisions would “severely burden a significant number of qualified voters but [are] not reasonably necessitated or designed to deter fraud or otherwise effect an important government interest.” They assert that they have shown that “over 300,000 Wisconsin electors lack an acceptable photo ID” and that “procuring a DMV Photo ID can be a frustrating, complex, and time-consuming process.” In contrast, here the League relies on no such evidence on these topics and challenges the photo identification requirement only under Article III of the state constitution.

We note that, in this case, amici curiae Dane County and The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign submitted limited evidentiary materials below in the form of four affidavits. Those affidavits, if admissible and credited, would support a conclusion that the photo identification requirement presents meaningful burdens to at least some voters. However, the League does not rely on these evidentiary materials in its arguments, nor in any way suggest that the materials create a factual dispute preventing summary judgment. On the contrary, by declining to rely on these materials, the League’s arguments implicitly disavow the possibility that such materials might be pertinent to the League’s facial challenge to the photo identification requirement under Article III. We further note that the circuit court referenced these evidentiary materials but concluded that the state officials “correctly observe that this court may not rely on this evidence in deciding plaintiffs’ purely facial challenge to Act 23’s constitutionality.” As far as we can discern, the League does not take issue with the circuit court’s conclusion on this point. For all of these reasons, we do not rely on the evidentiary materials and take no position on whether such materials could be considered in a facial challenge like the League’s or in a facial challenge under some other constitutional provision.

In the same vein, given the League’s limited arguments in this case, we make note of, but see no reason to discuss further, the United States Supreme Court’s split opinion addressing a facial challenge, under the federal constitution, to an Indiana law requiring photo identification to vote. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 187, 189, 200 (2008). Crawford involved allegations that the Indiana law “substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]; that it is neither a necessary nor appropriate method of avoiding election fraud; and that it will arbitrarily disenfranchise qualified voters who do not possess the required identification and will place an unjustified burden on those who cannot readily obtain such identification.” Id. at 187. A plurality of the Court concluded that the evidence in the record was insufficient “to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute.” See id. at 189.

[Anymouse]

35. We are so rural . . .

. . . that the state closed our polling place in town and now mails ballots to us. (Volunteers in the village used to staff the polling place, where knowing every single person in town is the best form of identification). The reason they gave was it cost too much money to transport voting equipment here.

The county did not print "do not forward" on last year's ballots: by law the Postmaster said he had no choice to forward several ballots out of state to people who do not live here any more.

A challenge by a village trustee who lost the election could not be mounted because the cost is too high. I don't know whether he would have won had eight ballots not been mailed out of town.

[Scuba]

38. Check the fine print. The picture must be of a white male, standing in front of property he owns.

Preferrably in a gated community.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Voting tax.

[sofa king]

44. Then make the registration a photo ID, dammit!

Hell, you could make it a single check-box on a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and then Republicans would be well and truly fucked.

Don't give up Wisconsin! Take a page out of the President's book and note that malevolence almost always has inherent weaknesses, weaknesses which can be exploited to punish the malevolent themselves.

Make 'em pay.

[adric mutelovic]

49. Yet another law that affect mostly minorities

Sad but true.