US Supreme Court temporarily halts law requiring voters to present present photo IDs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrazyDude

Member
MADISON, Wis. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Wisconsin from implementing a law requiring voters to present photo IDs, overturning a lower court decision that would have put the law in place for the November election.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the law constitutional on Monday. The American Civil Liberties Union followed that up the next day with an emergency request to the Supreme Court asking it to block the ruling.

On Thursday night the U.S. Supreme Court did so, issuing a one-page order that vacated the appeals court ruling pending further proceedings. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the application should have been denied because there was no indication that the 7th Circuit had demonstrably erred.

The voter photo identification law has been a political flashpoint since Republican legislators passed it in 2011. The GOP argues the mandate is a common sense step toward reducing election fraud. Democrats maintain no widespread fraud exists and that the law is really an attempt to keep Democratic constituents who may lack ID, such as the poor, minorities and the elderly, from voting.

The law was in effect for the February 2012 primary but subsequent legal challenges put it on hold and it hasn't been in place for any election since.

The ACLU and allied groups persuaded a federal judge in Milwaukee to declare the law unconstitutional in April.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision. A three-judge panel ruled last month that the state could implement the law while it considered the merits of the case, sparking outrage from the ACLU, its allies and Democrats who contended that state election officials couldn't re-implement the law in time for the Nov. 4 elections and that chaos would reign at the polls.

A flurry of legal jousting ensued. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court last week to take emergency action to block the appeals panel's decision. On Monday the 7th Circuit issued a full ruling declaring the law constitutional, a decision that was all but certain given the initial order allowing the state to move ahead, promoting the ACLU to follow Tuesday with another emergency request to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/278708791.html
 
So does this block the law entirely or just block enacting the law now while the merits are debated?

The decision came on the same day that a federal court in Texas ruled in favor of the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against Texas's voter ID law. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder welcomed both decisions.
Click to expand...
 
Why do Republicans think making voting as hard as possible a good thing?
Do they really believe voter fraud is that rampant?
 
If Republicans want to require voters to have ID to vote, they should also issue everyone a picture ID for free that doesn't require citizens to spend a whole day to acquire one.

These types of laws are like a modern day writing test law >.>

I'm glad the Supreme court blocked it.
 
Averon said:
Why do Republicans think making voting as hard as possible a good thing?
Do they really believe voter fraud is that rampant?
Click to expand...
If it prevents people who wouldn't vote for them anyway from voting, which is the real point of this rather than voter fraud, then yes, they do think it's a good thing.
 
Averon said:
Why do Republicans think making voting as hard as possible a good thing?
Do they really believe voter fraud is that rampant?
Click to expand...

It's about preventing as many low income/disadvantaged people from voting as possible, because those people vote democrat.


Eighty Deuce said:
It's really that hard to show a state issued ID?
Click to expand...

It is for poor people, who don't have the time or resources to get one. People are not required to have an ID.

But all this is irrelevant because voter fraud is NON-EXISTANT.

Seriously, literally nobody commits vote fraud.
 
This is probably still going to happen after the election. The law is too similar to Indiana not to stand. Wisconsin Supreme Court said the state had to provide free ID and without requiring a birth certificate. It's simply too close to the election to allow it. Unfortunately, with the current SCOTUS makeup, Voter ID is likely a reality in the near future.

Wisconsin Supreme Court (7/31/2014) said:
Roggensack wrote that “in order to resolve a conflict” between the law and the state’s administrative code, the court said the Department of Motor Vehicles would have to follow the law “in a constitutionally sufficient manner.”

“The modest fees for documents necessary to prove identity would be a severe burden on the constitutional right to vote not because they would be difficult for some to pay,” Roggensack wrote. “Rather, they would be a severe burden because the State of Wisconsin may not enact a law that requires any elector, rich or poor, to pay a fee of any amount to a government agency as a precondition to the elector’s exercising his or her constitutional right to vote.”

She added that the majority left DMV administrators discretion on when they could issue photo ID cards without other documents, like birth certificates.
Click to expand...

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_2018de7b-6819-544e-be84-0d5851c446f5.html
 
"A single document issued by the Government of B.C. or Canada that contains the voter’s name, photograph and residential address, such as a B.C. driver’s licence, B.C. Identification Card (BCID), or B.C. Services Card"

In BC to vote, you need the above, or you need two documents that show your full name and residential address such as a bank statement, utility bill etc.

I don't know about the US, and I can understand the hesitation against the attempts by Republicans to make it harder to certain minorities to vote. But ultimately, you always want to make sure there is no chance for voter fraud. I don't think it's a big issue in the US though.
 
Korey said:
It's about preventing as many low income/disadvantaged people from voting as possible, because those people vote democrat.




It is for poor people, who don't have the time or resources to get one. People are not required to have an ID.

But all this is irrelevant because voter fraud is NON-EXISTANT.

Seriously, literally nobody commits vote fraud.
Click to expand...

About that...


http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/gop...ns_out_wisconsins_worst_case_is_a_republican/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gop-voter-fraud/
 
Eighty Deuce said:
It's really that hard to show a state issued ID?
Click to expand...

Read this...
dorkkaos said:
If Republicans want to require voters to have ID to vote, they should also issue everyone a picture ID for free that doesn't require citizens to spend a whole day to acquire one.
Click to expand...
These laws tell people they need an ID but they don't provide one. They tell you that you need a driver's license or a state ID which aren't free, in addition to registering, and the people hurt most by these happen to be poor and don't have the time or resources to get said IDs.

Plus the people that are affected most by these Voter ID laws happen to be people who also happen to vote for democrats, tell me if that's a coincidence or not.
 
Madness said:
"A single document issued by the Government of B.C. or Canada that contains the voter’s name, photograph and residential address, such as a B.C. driver’s licence, B.C. Identification Card (BCID), or B.C. Services Card"

In BC to vote, you need the above, or you need two documents that show your full name and residential address such as a bank statement, utility bill etc.

I don't know about the US, and I can understand the hesitation against the attempts by Republicans to make it harder to certain minorities to vote. But ultimately, you always want to make sure there is no chance for voter fraud. I don't think it's a big issue in the US though.
Click to expand...

The type of voter fraud prevented by requiring photo ID is practically non-existent. Any cost is too high if the benefit is so small.
 
Bottom line is that, rich or poor, there's something seriously wrong with being forced to pay to vote, and that's what ID laws are doing.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
It's really that hard to show a state issued ID?
Click to expand...

It is when the government is not providing easy ways to obtain one free of charge.

Voter ID at its core is not bad, but it must be provided by the Government free of charge and with enough time between law enactment and enforcement for the Government to ensure they have reached out to every single voter.


Enact law in 2014 and put it to action in 2018.. it gives you 4 years to give out IDs to every single constituent in your state.
 
Vestal said:
It is when the government is not providing easy ways to obtain one free of charge.

Voter ID at its core is not bad, but it must be provided by the Government free of charge and with enough time between law enactment and enforcement for the Government to ensure they have reached out to every single voter.


Enact law in 2014 and put it to action in 2018.. it gives you 4 years to give out IDs to every single constituent in your state.
Click to expand...

But it's a waste of money.
 
The main problem with Voter ID laws in the US, is that the IDs that these laws typically allow are time consuming or normally unnecessary some people to obtain.

Most poor people dont have time off to go stand in line to get one of the 'allowed' IDs in time to vote, so they end up not voting at all, which is the main point of these laws.
 
Madness said:
"A single document issued by the Government of B.C. or Canada that contains the voter’s name, photograph and residential address, such as a B.C. driver’s licence, B.C. Identification Card (BCID), or B.C. Services Card"

In BC to vote, you need the above, or you need two documents that show your full name and residential address such as a bank statement, utility bill etc.

I don't know about the US, and I can understand the hesitation against the attempts by Republicans to make it harder to certain minorities to vote. But ultimately, you always want to make sure there is no chance for voter fraud. I don't think it's a big issue in the US though.
Click to expand...

In person voter fraud is non-existent. So much so that the State of Wisconsin couldn't show any documented cases in the federal court trial in Milwaukee earlier this year.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...acp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/

The NAACP’s claim -- actually, News21’s -- that only 10 provable cases of voter impersonation have occurred in the country in the past dozen years is based on extensive analysis and data received from the actual elections officials in charge of handling these issues. Without doing a repeat of the 50-state data collection and review, it is impossible to re-create the same type of research.
Click to expand...

To get the data, News21 reporters sent records requests to elections officers in all 50 states seeking every case of fraudulent elections activity, including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, voter impersonation fraud and casting an ineligible vote. News21 said it received no useful responses from several states. With some states, including Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota, the cases included in the database came from a survey of alleged election fraud conducted by the Republican National Lawyers Association. And in some states, some but not all local jurisdictions responded, and some responses were missing important details about each case. Despite those issues, News21 defends its work as "substantially complete" as the largest collection of election fraud cases gathered by anyone in the country.

After compiling all the information into an election fraud database, News21 found that 207 cases of other types of election fraud existed for every case of voter impersonation.
Click to expand...

But it's worth disenfranchising minorities and the aged.
 
Yeah, I heard this on Rachel Maddow.

Good, especially the one in Wisconsin which was a complete clusterfuck and it's always good when Texas gets put in it's place. How scummy is the GOP? They spout on about American values and then try and block people from voting. What a bunch of fucking hypocrite low lives.
 
slit said:
Yeah, I heard this on Rachel Maddow.

Good, especially the one in Wisconsin which was a complete clusterfuck and it's always good when Texas gets put in it's place. How scummy is the GOP? They spout on about American values and then try and block people from voting. What a bunch of fucking hypocrite low lives.
Click to expand...

The same GOP that limit early-voting days, shorten voting hours and close voting places. In Flordia, there were reports of people waiting at least 6-10 hours for a chance to vote during the 2012 election.
 
Vestal said:
Voter ID at its core is not bad, but it must be provided by the Government free of charge and with enough time between law enactment and enforcement for the Government to ensure they have reached out to every single voter.


Enact law in 2014 and put it to action in 2018.. it gives you 4 years to give out IDs to every single constituent in your state.
Click to expand...
While I do agree that voter ID isn't inherently bad either, the Republicans rush these laws and, in effect, suppress the vote of people who would have otherwise voted for their opponents.

Also, by not realizing that they have to provide IDs to people, since voting is a constitutional right, it'll cost the state more money due to that the ideal is that they'd have to provide a new ID card for voter specific sessions to all registered voters. But no it's the Republicans that are fiscal conservatives :eyeroll:
 
Vestal said:
It is when the government is not providing easy ways to obtain one free of charge.

Voter ID at its core is not bad, but it must be provided by the Government free of charge and with enough time between law enactment and enforcement for the Government to ensure they have reached out to every single voter.


Enact law in 2014 and put it to action in 2018.. it gives you 4 years to give out IDs to every single constituent in your state.
Click to expand...

That works for people who don't move.

This law is not just about poor people. It's also about college students who move to a new state to go to school and only have a driver's license from their birth state. College students are notably liberal and notably procrastinators; they're not likely to go out of their way to pick up a photo ID in advance.
 
Armaros said:
The same GOP that limit early-voting days, shorten voting hours and close voting places. In Flordia, there were reports of people waiting at least 6-10 hours for a chance to vote during the 2012 election.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I mean. This is what happens when people don't vote in the midterms. People need to get off their lazy asses and vote, unless you're a minority in which case it might be impossible.
 
tokkun said:
That works for people who don't move.

This law is not just about poor people. It's also about college students who move to a new state to go to school and only have a driver's license from their birth state. College students are notably liberal and notably procrastinators; they're not likely to go out of their way to pick up a photo ID in advance.
Click to expand...

Old people that dont go anywhere and dont drive, so they dont have a legal passport or drivers license.

Poor people in the city that dont have a car, so they have no need for a drivers license.

Etc etc, the list goes on.
 
Vestal said:
It is when the government is not providing easy ways to obtain one free of charge.

Voter ID at its core is not bad, but it must be provided by the Government free of charge and with enough time between law enactment and enforcement for the Government to ensure they have reached out to every single voter.


Enact law in 2014 and put it to action in 2018.. it gives you 4 years to give out IDs to every single constituent in your state.
Click to expand...

Voter ID is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

It doesn't need to be implemented for any reason, even if it sounds good in theory. In fact, it does more harm than good.
 
Madness said:
"A single document issued by the Government of B.C. or Canada that contains the voter’s name, photograph and residential address, such as a B.C. driver’s licence, B.C. Identification Card (BCID), or B.C. Services Card"

In BC to vote, you need the above, or you need two documents that show your full name and residential address such as a bank statement, utility bill etc.

I don't know about the US, and I can understand the hesitation against the attempts by Republicans to make it harder to certain minorities to vote. But ultimately, you always want to make sure there is no chance for voter fraud. I don't think it's a big issue in the US though.
Click to expand...


If minorities were not disenfranchised like they are in USA, everyone would be OK with voter ids
 
Volimar said:
Ohio keeps trying this shit.
Click to expand...

Yep. And the very same Supreme Court that struck this down eliminated the "golden week" in Ohio (which I believe would have been this week), making it even harder.

The same Supreme Court that did this seemingly good thing in Wisconsin did a seemingly bad thing for Ohio. Try to figure it out.
 
Cat Party said:
Pretty much. If it wasn't provable that these laws are being pushed solely to give the GOP an advantage at the polls, I can't imagine many people would oppose them.
Click to expand...

I think they should be opposed since issuing everyone a free ID whenever they move is a waste of tax dollars. It's not solving any problem so there is literally no acceptable cost to be borne by the taxpayers.
 
Can someone really walk around, go to work, go about their daily lives in a U.S. state without a form of photo identification? Is that legal? Genuine question here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
2
62
2K
jason10mm replied
Jussie Smollet’s conviction overturned by Illinois supreme court
38
2K
Drake replied
Mark Zuckerberg and T-Pain present "Get Low" remix
25
1K
ResilientBanana replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News 
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
  • Poll
Was the past better than the present? Or not?
2
60
3K
dave_d replied
Top Bottom