Wisconsin Voter ID

the problem isn't just asking for an ID, it's limiting the number of IDs that are acceptable. Oddly enough, the republican state legislatures keep picking IDs that their voters are more likely to have than Democratic voters. my, my, my, what an odd coincidence.

I have found that when these discussions go on long enough, a rightie will eventually note that he doesn't think everyone should have the right to vote. It's all about restricting who has rights as an equal citizen.
 
On a side note, why don't we do that purple-ink-finger thing that other countries do? I keep being told that Democrats have voters that vote more than once each election (:rolleyes:). The purple-inked finger would eliminate that better than restricting IDs.
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
the problem isn't just asking for an ID, it's limiting the number of IDs that are acceptable. Oddly enough, the republican state legislatures keep picking IDs that their voters are more likely to have than Democratic voters. my, my, my, what an odd coincidence.

I have found that when these discussions go on long enough, a rightie will eventually note that he doesn't think everyone should have the right to vote. It's all about restricting who has rights as an equal citizen.
Click to expand...

As someone who seems to tend "left," I have occasionally felt that some people shouldn't have the right to vote. For example, people on whatever side that just vote on a straight party ticket without having actually paid any attention to who or what they're actually voting for, but just exhibited blind party loyalty. Admittedly, I rarely let my feelings be the sole determinant of what I actually support, so I do not hold the position that that would be a viable reason to restrict voting rights.

Myron Proudfoot said:
On a side note, why don't we do that purple-ink-finger thing that other countries do? I keep being told that Democrats have voters that vote more than once each election (:rolleyes:). The purple-inked finger would eliminate that better than restricting IDs.
Click to expand...

Possibly. The sad thing is that despite their attempts, those who claim significant voter fraud have been remarkably unsuccessful at making their case in general, though there certainly has been voter fraud that has occurred... and have been fairly completely unable to make a case for in person voter fraud occurring at all. But then, I may merely be biased by every case I've seen of the claimants trying to do so... and annoyed by the fact that I know otherwise intelligent people who presented an article about a woman with a miscalibrated screen who managed to vote for the candidate that they wanted in the end as evidence that a county's vote ended up at 100% for a candidate. Either way, there's still not a good case for implementing that, and the political figures that have been pushing for voter ID laws would lack much of what seems to be their actual motivation for measures like that.
 
Last edited:
I would propose that anyone still using the racism excuse actually read the bill's language and cite where they thing the claim applies. The Wisconsin bill clearly was rejected on grounds other than the race fear mongering.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I would propose that anyone still using the racism excuse actually read the bill's language and cite where they thing the claim applies. The Wisconsin bill clearly was rejected on grounds other than the race fear mongering.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. It was rejected because it unreasonably burdens voters under the 14th amendment, and, separately, because it discriminates against minority voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Unsurprisingly, legislation rarely telegraphs a racist intent. I mean, I could challenge you to read some of the poll tax laws of the Jim Crow era and tell me where you think the claim of racism applies--but unless you're willing to concede that it is sufficient to show that a set of rules that applies equally to everyone can nevertheless have a discriminatory effect and that it's valid to consider the context in which they were passed, you won't be able to do it. Those laws, too, were written to pass constitutional muster, and they did, right up until 1966.
 
I wonder if the right-wingers who defend these laws also think people like Phyllis Schlafly and others who pine for the days when women couldn't vote are also just interested in "maintaining the integrity of the electoral process", or if they actually do draw a line somewhere.
 
applecorped said:
cite?
Click to expand...

from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters/

In December, Republican strategist Scott Tranter acknowledged that “a lot of us are campaign professionals and we want to do everything we can to help our sides. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines, whatever it may be.” The Romney campaign’s Wisconsin co-chair, state Sen. Alberta Darling (R), also suggested that the Massachusetts governor would have won Wisconsin but for the fact that the state’s voter ID law was declared unconstitutional by a state court
 
mumblethrax said:
That's incorrect. It was rejected because it unreasonably burdens voters under the 14th amendment, and, separately, because it discriminates against minority voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Click to expand...

Based on what im reading of the bill its explained broadly that the id law added additional hurdlesb to the suffrage of everyone. Not just minorities, basically the judge explains that election laws have age and residency requirements that stipulate minimum requirements already. There's more to that but i neednti ne on an actual board to spend the time needed to fully elaborate (on a phone). There was also the burden that the added requirements impose in general. I can buy those reasons but I see no evidence of the racism element in specific other thab as a side effect... not the rampant partisanship that pollutes much of the thread.


Ill post a better response when im on a computer. Im researching the law, the ruling, and the non partisan politifact sites to see if it changes my position at all


Again excuse the typos... the phone keyboard is a pain :/
 
maxpower1227 said:
I wonder if the right-wingers who defend these laws also think people like Phyllis Schlafly and others who pine for the days when women couldn't vote are also just interested in "maintaining the integrity of the electoral process", or if they actually do draw a line somewhere.
Click to expand...

Most do. I honestly think that if anyone were to seriously suggest that women should have their voting rights revoked, most conservatives would recoil in horror. Just like how most of them recoiled in horror when the full lunacy of the Terri Schiavo debacle was made public. And just like how most of them recoiled in horror at seeing the dumbass racism of Cliven Bundy come out into full bloom.

I mean, seriously, think about it. A lot of conservatives rallied around Sarah Palin, for FSM's sake. And no matter what else you might say about her, she's definitely a woman (rowr*).

*Yes, I find her physically attractive. No, I would never consider voting for her.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I can buy those reasons but I see no evidence of the racism element in specific other thab as a side effect...
Click to expand...
Adelman found that the law had a "discriminatory result" under the Voting Rights Act, which is a higher bar to meet than a disproportionate impact. It's not merely a side effect.

Finding a general burden would actually be worse for voter ID proponents.

Ill post a better response when im on a computer. Im researching the law, the ruling, and the non partisan politifact sites to see if it changes my position at all
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll find much at Politifact--detailed legal analysis isn't really their thing. Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog is probably a better bet.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
And quite the smack down it turned out do be. I'm sure Walker is feeling quite humbled now.
Click to expand...

I've never heard "Walker" and "humble" in the same sentence before. But yeah, congratulations. Our absolutely horrible Supreme Court made another absolutely horrible decision. I'm sure you are thrilled.
 
Ziggurat said:
And quite the smack down it turned out do be. I'm sure Walker is feeling quite humbled now.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to Wisconsin's Republican-backed law requiring voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot, a measure Democrats contend is aimed at keeping their supporters from voting.
Click to expand...

Translation: Our voters are too stupid to figure out how to get a free photo id from the state.

Are they proud of this?
 
Some quotes, from Zig's link in poosr #151. I think they are needed for some of us:

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to Wisconsin's Republican-backed law requiring voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot, "

"The Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of such voter ID laws."

So voter ID is the law in Wis., as well as other places.

And from elsewhere, for those who think it's the usual partisan 5-4 vote: "The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. "

So Libs, better to quitchyerbitchin, and start hauling busloads of po' folks to the DMV.
 
Last edited:
If states with Voter ID laws have to give out free I.D.s, do they last longer than in states that charge for them?

I've always thought it ridiculous that IDs expire before the holder does. Drivers licenses maybe, as we get OLD. But why can't I cash a check? It's obviously me in the pic.

And in today's digital society, why not have thumbprint scanner aps EVERYWHERE?. No card needed, no card reader, no "strip down and face me" ;) , no PIN. Scan a thumb, choose which account to debit, and away you go.

Want to vote? There's an ap for that.

But hey, in which juristictions do they E-vote? Isn't that a solution to everything?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
If states with Voter ID laws have to give out free I.D.s, do they last longer than in states that charge for them?

I've always thought it ridiculous that IDs expire before the holder does. Drivers licenses maybe, as we get OLD. But why can't I cash a check? It's obviously me in the pic.

And in today's digital society, why not have thumbprint scanner aps EVERYWHERE?. No card needed, no card reader, no "strip down and face me" ;) , no PIN. Scan a thumb, choose which account to debit, and away you go.

Want to vote? There's an ap for that.

But hey, in which juristictions do they E-vote? Isn't that a solution to everything?
Click to expand...

But that would raise voter turn out, that would be truly terrifying to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom