Federal Court Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law


#1

More good news in the in the fight against voter suppression. First Texas and now Wisconsin have had their voter id laws struck down.

A federal court in Milwaukee just ruled against a controversial Wisconsin voter ID law.

In the case of Frank v. Walker, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decided yesterday (July 19) that voters who could not provide acceptable photo identification must be allowed to seek and use an affidavit that confirms their identity.

“Although most voters in Wisconsin either possess qualifying ID or can easily obtain one, a safety net is needed for those voters who cannot obtain qualifying ID with reasonable effort,” read the ruling. “The plaintiffs’ proposed affidavit option is a sensible approach that will both prevent the disenfranchisement of some voters during the pendency of this litigation and preserve Wisconsin’s interests in protecting the integrity of its elections.”


#2

The WI law, although apparently flawed, was not a case of “voter suppression.” The law will be revised to meet the federal court’s definition. That’s all that’s happened here, not a full on rebellion against the forces of suppression. :rolleyes: I think someone has been overly influenced by left wing news outlet headlines. :wink:


#3

Voter id would reduce voter fraud. Is it really that expensive to obtain a photo id? I don’t drive, but I must have an id to fly and regularly at a doctor’s appointment (i think once a year or every two years they need a photo copy). Mine cost about $25 or so and is good for 5 years.


#4

I see a pattern here.

Federal Judge Lynn Adelman strikes down Wisconsin voter ID in April 2014:

jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-strikes-down-wisconsins-voter-id-law-b99258822z1-257200321.html

The 2014 elections move forward without voter ID law in effect.

The Supreme Court overturns that decision in March 2015:

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/23/supreme-court-voter-id-wisconsin/25108917/

Then the same federal judge strikes down the same law in 2016…presumably keeping the voter id law out for the 2016 election.

Yep, we no longer have laws in this country. We are being ruled by the court system. Sad to say I really have no voice in our political system. I’m pretty much warn out trying to fix a broken system. Part of me wonders if it ever really worked at all. We’ve been told a lie that elections matter. I don’t see the evidence.


#5

You can actually get a free voter ID in Wisconsin.

gab.wi.gov/node/1917

Supression? Really? :shrug:


#6

So, we can demand that people show ID to prove their eligibility for welfare checks and food stamps but not to vote?

And it is about increasing voter registration for the benefit of one political party, isn’t it? :sad_yes:

In case anyone missed it, we have passed the point of no return at which time the “takers” in our society outnumbered the “makers”.

All that’s left is for people to continue voting money out of the public trough for themselves until we are all broke.


#7

“Suppression” is democrat buzz-word that tries to scare people. Voter fraud is vastly used more by democrats, and they don’t like these laws that help curtail the fraud. The facade of the movement is (as always) a false compassion for a made up victim group.

I’m sure someone will follow up and say “both sides have voter fraud” and another will say “one vote lost is too many.” Democrats by far own the voter fraud schemes, and more fraud will be curtailed than votes will be “lost” by “suppression.” These are facts.


#8

You are correct and I think it is shameful that anyone thinks and claims requiring ID to vote is a form of legitimate voter suppression. It is only a form of fraudulent voter suppression.


#9

Voter ID laws do not suppress legitimate votes. They only suppress fraudulent votes, and those should be suppressed.


#10

It’s mind-boggling to me. Without an ID we can’t drive our own cars, but we can vote for who drives the country. How inane.


#11

Can’t buy a six pack of beer, can’t get in an airplane, can’t rent a hotel room… The list goes on and on. Talk about rhetoric.


#12

Here’s a fun one.

washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

open a bank account
apply for food stamps
apply for unemployment, welfare, social security,
get married
get a fishing license
pull a permit to protest in public


#13

Voting is a constitutional right. Driving a car is not.


#14

Neither is allowed for everyone. There are limits set on every right and privilege in this country. ID isn’t difficult to get, therefore no one is being discriminated against.


#15

Isn’t that a good argument for requiring ID, then? It’s so important that it’s in the Constitution?


#16

Now I know there is no universal answer to the question, but I ask to hear the rest of your speculation.

I know there is a certain percentage of the population that accept the rhetoric of “suppression” as fact. I wonder how many (or few) actually naively believe this line.

But conversely, I wonder how many (or few) understand the “social justice” issue is practically nonexistant (the last time the media tried to dig up “victims” they couldn’t find a legitimate one - they each were exposed after their on-air testimony) and that they simply want the voter fraud because they know it benefits the political ends they seek.

Summary of the questions: I wonder how many are useful idiots and how many know the truth but still intend to deceive.


#17

If you don’t have an ID you don’t have fewer constitutional rights.


#18

But you do have constitutional limits.


#19

Should you have to have an ID…

…to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure?
…to not be required to incriminate yourself?
…to be allowed to have free speech?
…to have yellow margarine?

Oops, sorry, that last one is a constitutional right over here… :doh2:


#20

But an ID is required to…

…purchase a firearm (2nd amendment)
…get a permit to protest in public (1st amendment)

Oops, those are constitutional rights.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.