Judges Overturn Racially Motivated Voter Suppression Laws in WI, TX, & MI

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/19/federal_judge_strikes_blow_to_wisconsin_voter_id_law.html

Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman significantly weakened a key provision of Wisconsin’s stringent voter ID law, prohibiting the state from enforcing the measure in a manner that would effectively suppress thousands of votes. The law—supported almost exclusively by Republicans, purportedly to prevent voter fraud—requires citizens to present a state-approved ID card before voting. Under Adelman’s ruling, voters with no ID will have a legal right in November to instead sign an affidavit declaring that it would take “unreasonable effort” for them to obtain an ID, and then be allowed to vote.


I particularly like this part:
Adelman even cites Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision, to support his contention that “where a state law burdens a constitutional right, the state must produce evidence supporting its claim that the burden is necessary to further the state’s claimed interests.”

So the state can't make up bullshit to justify removing constitutional rights. Something I hope we can all agree on.


Edit: And now Texas Voter Law goes down

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/texas_voter_id_law_ruled_illegal_under_the_voting_rights_act.html

Edit2:
And now Michigan!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/michigan_judge_strikes_down_straight_party_voting_ban.html
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
same judge that was overruled earlier on a similar ruling.

Same judge that was "a former Democratic state senator, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ds-to-cast-ballots-b99764677z1-387501461.html


hack judge is a hack.

You should be happy that this is limiting the government's power to restrict your rights. What's that? You don't really care about limiting the government's power? Maybe you're an authoritarian and don't even know it. Maybe every time you act like liberals are the ones trying to restrict your rights you are really just projecting your own faults onto liberals.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,559
136
If part of enacting voter id laws the burden was on the state to ensure all eligible voters were issued the required ID then I would be on board.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
same judge that was overruled earlier on a similar ruling.

Same judge that was "a former Democratic state senator, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ds-to-cast-ballots-b99764677z1-387501461.html


hack judge is a hack.

:D. Never change Michal!

I hope when the democrats pass their racist no-fly no-buy bill after the election this judge strikes it down as well.

It's not a bad idea. But without some sort of robust due process it's problematic.
Whole Women's Health may have some interesting ramifications on current jurisprudence but that's probably for a seperate thread. ;)

So I take it you're against gun control laws as well?

Depends on the gun law. I'm totally for background checks. The original AWB was worthless and probably could have been overturned under a similar argument. What's this got to do with Voter ID?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
If part of enacting voter id laws the burden was on the state to ensure all eligible voters were issued the required ID then I would be on board.

The problem is that there are a lot of legitimate US citizens that have no easy way to prove who they are.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
The problem is that there are a lot of legitimate US citizens that have no easy way to prove who they are.

Case in point from the court case:
For instance, Adelman describes the disturbing plight of one elderly Wisconsin man whose Mississippi birth certificate and federal social security card contained a slight discrepancy in the spelling of his name. The state agency informed him that he would need to travel to Mississippi, retrieve a new, corrected birth certificate, and return to Wisconsin before he could get an ID card and vote. Eventually, the man’s daughter persuaded the state to let her father sign an affidavit testifying to his real name. He had suffered a stroke, however, and could not write, so his daughter, who had power of attorney, signed the affidavit for her father. But because the affidavit contained the daughter’s name, the state rejected it, denying the man an ID card and, thus, his right to vote. In all, the daughter spent five months trying, unsuccessfully, to obtain a proper ID for her father.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The problem is that there are a lot of legitimate US citizens that have no easy way to prove who they are.

You're confusing two related but separate problems, of which Voter ID is only trying to solve one. You already pointed out the first, and solving it would be helpful those people and society at large but the cost-benefit still may not be positive. I'd still support doing it even if it created a net cost just because it's the right thing to do. I daresay it's a non-trivial but not massive amount of people who fall into the category of getting an ID would be nearly impossible rather than just slightly inconvenient. We can mitigate the second by financially assisting the later group. For the first group, that's where the second factor comes into play.

The second problem that Voter ID does attempt to solve is enforcing the "one person, one vote" principle. For that problem it doesn't so much matter that we can definitively 'prove who you are' but rather that we can identify you period even if it's not your "true" identity. That's to ensure that you can't pass yourself as someone else (or another person as you) in order to vote more than once. Hell you could cast your one vote as Popeye for all I care so long as you're not voting in the name of George Bush or a bunch of union workers or GOP operatives aren't all claiming to be Popeye and casting votes in your name.

There's different ways of doing that, for example the Iraqis famously used the "blue ink on finger" system. Some analog of the "Minority Report" eyeball scanning system would work. Photo ID is a reasonable suggestion since it's nearly ubiquitous and should (in theory) not be that hard to get IDs for those who don't have them already. All I know is that the current means many states use for 'validating' identity are complete bullshit. If I simply take a utility bill out of your mailbox and pass myself off as you and the state doesn't care, that's the sign of a fucked up system where the persons establishing the rules think it benefits them to have weak to non-existent controls on verifying the identity of voters.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
You're confusing two related but separate problems, of which Voter ID is only trying to solve one. You already pointed out the first, and solving it would be helpful those people and society at large but the cost-benefit still may not be positive. I'd still support doing it even if it created a net cost just because it's the right thing to do. I daresay it's a non-trivial but not massive amount of people who fall into the category of getting an ID would be nearly impossible rather than just slightly inconvenient. We can mitigate the second by financially assisting the later group. For the first group, that's where the second factor comes into play.

The second problem that Voter ID does attempt to solve is enforcing the "one person, one vote" principle. For that problem it doesn't so much matter that we can definitively 'prove who you are' but rather that we can identify you period even if it's not your "true" identity. That's to ensure that you can't pass yourself as someone else (or another person as you) in order to vote more than once. Hell you could cast your one vote as Popeye for all I care so long as you're not voting in the name of George Bush or a bunch of union workers or GOP operatives aren't all claiming to be Popeye and casting votes in your name.

There's different ways of doing that, for example the Iraqis famously used the "blue ink on finger" system. Some analog of the "Minority Report" eyeball scanning system would work. Photo ID is a reasonable suggestion since it's nearly ubiquitous and should (in theory) not be that hard to get IDs for those who don't have them already. All I know is that the current means many states use for 'validating' identity are complete bullshit. If I simply take a utility bill out of your mailbox and pass myself off as you and the state doesn't care, that's the sign of a fucked up system where the persons establishing the rules think it benefits them to have weak to non-existent controls on verifying the identity of voters.
What you need to acknowledge, is that it would be much easier and much less risky for someone to vote more than once by using absentee ballots rather than voting in person. This is why these pushes for voter ID laws are so transparent. They make it harder to cheat the system in a way that is already harder in the first place, while fucking over legitimate citizens in the process, most of whom btw vote for Democrats, but that's just a happy coincidence for the GOP.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,917
35,430
136
More anti-democractic dogma from the GOP bites the dust!

I hope one day the conservatives who support this foolishness can bring themselves to be honest about the issue.

If you need to rig election laws and rely on ridiculous use of gerrymandering to say in office, then you shouldn't be in office to begin with. Politicians should be attaining office via voter support, not by corrupting the system to favor your side while disenfranchising the other.

*Note: the above applies to any Dem who falls into the same sleazy category*
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,114
6
76
So the state can't make up bullshit to justify removing constitutional rights. Something I hope we can all agree on.

Depends on the gun law. I'm totally for background checks. The original AWB was worthless and probably could have been overturned under a similar argument. What's this got to do with Voter ID?

Just illustrating the hypocrisy in your initial statement.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,629
2,355
126
This modern voter suppression trend is one of the most shameful eras of modern US jurisprudence. It wasn't too long ago (I'm thinking back to the 70's and 80's) when, from my personal experience, EVERY single judge I encountered and specifically including conservative judges and judges of either party universally treated the right to vote as one of the most sacrosanct rights under our system of government and looked very severely at anything that would obstruct that right. It's very sad that one political party's interests have so severely bent what is all of our rights as Americans.

Judge Adelman's decision is on very solid legal ground, including the part about throwing the burden of proof and persuasion upon the state.

I predict in another two or three decades law students and scholars who look back on this chapter in our law will view it as a temporary, politically inspired perverse aberration of our system of justice.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,061
1,459
126
This modern voter suppression trend is one of the most shameful eras of modern US jurisprudence. It wasn't too long ago (I'm thinking back to the 70's and 80's) when, from my personal experience, EVERY single judge I encountered and specifically including conservative judges and judges of either party universally treated the right to vote as one of the most sacrosanct rights under our system of government and looked very severely at anything that would obstruct that right. It's very sad that one political party's interests have so severely bent what is all of our rights as Americans.

Judge Adelman's decision is on very solid legal ground, including the part about throwing the burden of proof and persuasion upon the state.

I predict in another two or three decades law students and scholars who look back on this chapter in our law will view it as a temporary, politically inspired perverse aberration of our system of justice.
It's the newest attempt at Jim Crow. Current conservatives are 100% aware that these laws ONLY purpose is to suppress voter rights, they just don't care. So long as it's helping their team, they don't care. It's like a few years ago when the NFL Saints had a bounty program to injure opposing players. When it came out later, everyone hated the Saints except Saints fans because the intentional injury causing helped them win a Super Bowl. People cheer for their team no matter how horrible they act so long as that horrible behavior gets the W.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
You're confusing two related but separate problems, of which Voter ID is only trying to solve one. You already pointed out the first, and solving it would be helpful those people and society at large but the cost-benefit still may not be positive. I'd still support doing it even if it created a net cost just because it's the right thing to do. I daresay it's a non-trivial but not massive amount of people who fall into the category of getting an ID would be nearly impossible rather than just slightly inconvenient. We can mitigate the second by financially assisting the later group. For the first group, that's where the second factor comes into play.

The second problem that Voter ID does attempt to solve is enforcing the "one person, one vote" principle. For that problem it doesn't so much matter that we can definitively 'prove who you are' but rather that we can identify you period even if it's not your "true" identity. That's to ensure that you can't pass yourself as someone else (or another person as you) in order to vote more than once. Hell you could cast your one vote as Popeye for all I care so long as you're not voting in the name of George Bush or a bunch of union workers or GOP operatives aren't all claiming to be Popeye and casting votes in your name.

There's different ways of doing that, for example the Iraqis famously used the "blue ink on finger" system. Some analog of the "Minority Report" eyeball scanning system would work. Photo ID is a reasonable suggestion since it's nearly ubiquitous and should (in theory) not be that hard to get IDs for those who don't have them already. All I know is that the current means many states use for 'validating' identity are complete bullshit. If I simply take a utility bill out of your mailbox and pass myself off as you and the state doesn't care, that's the sign of a fucked up system where the persons establishing the rules think it benefits them to have weak to non-existent controls on verifying the identity of voters.

Let's follow your thought exercise through to conclusion. After stealing a utility bill so I can vote as you and later as me, you decide to go vote. When you show up and they check the signature page and I've already signed for you what happens then?

Well maybe you don't decide to vote so I get away with it. For in person voter fraud to actually have an impact a minimum of 1000's and more likely 10,000's of fraudulent votes need to be cast. For your concern to be real those people who are being impersonated would all have to not vote. Otherwise election officials would know there was significant fraudulent activities happening.

No study, none, have shown this to be true.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The problem is that there are a lot of legitimate US citizens that have no easy way to prove who they are.

That can be particularly difficult for elderly women because of the convention of taking on the husband's surname. They must be able to document all changes back to their birth certificate often across multiple states & marriages.

Semi-honest advocates of strict voter ID have no rational justification other than fear of the unknown but that doesn't stop them, of course.

Without it, Bigfoot might vote. Horrifying, huh?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
Let's follow your thought exercise through to conclusion. After stealing a utility bill so I can vote as you and later as me, you decide to go vote. When you show up and they check the signature page and I've already signed for you what happens then?

Well maybe you don't decide to vote so I get away with it. For in person voter fraud to actually have an impact a minimum of 1000's and more likely 10,000's of fraudulent votes need to be cast. For your concern to be real those people who are being impersonated would all have to not vote. Otherwise election officials would know there was significant fraudulent activities happening.

No study, none, have shown this to be true.
Or worse, you go to vote for him but he has already voted and signed and now you face the real probability of jail time.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,946
23,711
136
Our very own Kris Kobach who is the Captain Ahab of voter fraud has yet to bring a single case of in person voter fraud. Despite touting time and again in his campaigns that he knows of many cases that just aren't being prosecuted. All of the cases he has brought have been related to double voting in two states and typically involved absentee ballots which were not targeted by any of these new laws and was already illegal.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,061
1,459
126
Or worse, you go to vote for him but he has already voted and signed and now you face the real probability of jail time.

It's simply not logistically feasible to sway an election by impersonating someone else at the polls. It's much more feasible to use absentee ballots if you want to impersonate another voter. However, no republicans have attempted to change how absentee balloting works because they know that absentee ballots tend to favor republican voters.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,446
7,833
136
Already been stated. These efforts are a transparent effort to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist. If those in favor of stopping "voter fraud" were legitimately concerned, they would in fact focus their efforts on absentee ballots.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Let's follow your thought exercise through to conclusion. After stealing a utility bill so I can vote as you and later as me, you decide to go vote. When you show up and they check the signature page and I've already signed for you what happens then?

Well maybe you don't decide to vote so I get away with it. For in person voter fraud to actually have an impact a minimum of 1000's and more likely 10,000's of fraudulent votes need to be cast. For your concern to be real those people who are being impersonated would all have to not vote. Otherwise election officials would know there was significant fraudulent activities happening.

No study, none, have shown this to be true.

I'm all for anything we can do to reduce fraud there to, and any other vector for that matter. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and likewise we can reduce vote and election fraud on multiple fronts simultaneously as well.

And I'm not advocating the Voter ID thing because I think it's going to swing an election and the controls don't need to be as robust as Fort Knox. Free IDs for the poor/indigent combined with a system of affadavits and physical control (like the blue ink on finger) would still be vastly more secure while presenting no appreciable burden for pretty much anyone.
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,114
6
76
I'm all for anything we can do to reduce fraud there to, and any other vector for that matter. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and likewise we can reduce vote and election fraud on multiple fronts simultaneously as well.

And I'm not advocating the Voter ID thing because I think it's going to swing an election and the controls don't need to be as robust as Fort Knox. Free IDs for the poor/indigent combined with a system of affadavits and physical control (like the blue ink on finger) would still be vastly more secure while presenting no appreciable burden for pretty much anyone.

Agreed. Personally I think the state should provide ID for free to all citizens; after all, the argument is that it's in the state's best interest to reduce fraud of all kinds. Yes, there are costs involved, but ultimately they're a drop in the bucket compared to all the other things that we spend money on at a federal/state level.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
I'm all for anything we can do to reduce fraud there to, and any other vector for that matter. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and likewise we can reduce vote and election fraud on multiple fronts simultaneously as well.

And I'm not advocating the Voter ID thing because I think it's going to swing an election and the controls don't need to be as robust as Fort Knox. Free IDs for the poor/indigent combined with a system of affadavits and physical control (like the blue ink on finger) would still be vastly more secure while presenting no appreciable burden for pretty much anyone.

Agreed. Personally I think the state should provide ID for free to all citizens; after all, the argument is that it's in the state's best interest to reduce fraud of all kinds. Yes, there are costs involved, but ultimately they're a drop in the bucket compared to all the other things that we spend money on at a federal/state level.

So you two are just going to keep on keepin' on advocating changes that have been repeatedly shown to negatively affect legitimate citizens in order to fight a scenario that does not happen enough to even be measurable, effectively burning down the house to get rid of a wasp nest your neighbor told you is there but the licensed exterminator could find no evidence showing it exists.