A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID
 

Glad Molly had a responsible owner that came foward.

Big question is how many other Molly's are out there? :eek:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2012/mar...-deceased-dog/

filling out the registration form, even in part is fraud or intended fraud IMO.

Only an ID matching the name would prevent other not so honest Molly owner's from voting.

And now you know the rest of the story

Hardly any "Mollies" out there at all, according to reality.

I mean, other than the Republican Party altering vote counts during this primary season - geesh, it's not even being covered up any more!

Face it: the ALEC - Republican voting disinfranchisement laws are trying to be passed only to decrease the number of voters that usually tend to vote Democratic.

Same reason Congressional Republicans defunded ACORN based upon lies and altered videotape from James O'Keefe, Breitbart's hire.

You wouldn't know reality if it clubbed you in the face!

That's mean!!

Naw. It's ignorant, childish and stupid. Like Limbaugh :D Dell won't or can't address the actual numbered incidences of voter fraud, so he has to call names instead.

One is too many cases! I addressed an incident; you post 38 prosecutions, most thrown out, call me Limbaugh and in one of your patented distorted breaks from reality accuse me of calling you a name?

Why is it that Democrats have a problem showing ID?

Is it related to wanting everything for free, no questions asked?

Nearly all of the few cases of voter fraud in this country are not correctable by showing a photo ID (most cases are done by election officials).

It's a lie that there is "massive voter fraud" and we "need" voter ID. For 34 REPUBLICAN states to suddenly think that's needed before the 2012 election? When there is virtually zero history of ID-correctable fraud in this country?

Wake up and smell the Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Republican Party attempting to take back power. For goodness sakes, Dell, they have SAID that is the reason they are pushing voter ID for 2012.

Nobody has a problem with "showing ID". It's the methods. Like requiring voter ID, then closing down DMV offices where it's obtained in poor neighborhoods of northern Wisconsin - so elderly and poor would have to drive 60 plus miles to obtain it.

Like Texas making photo student ID's (young students tend to vote Democratic) not good enough, but photo gun registration cards (tend to vote Republican) okay.

If you pretend to be libertarian, concern about people disinfranchising up to 5 million voters in the next election should really worry you.

It is estimated that 1 in 5 black/brown people do not drive, or have the necessary photo ID. As opposed to 1 in 10 white people. THAT is the point of this. The Republican Party knows which way the demographics are trending over the next 20 years, and whites will be the minority quickly.

The Justice Department is all over this, as is their responsibility defending the rights of US citizens, and implementation of restrictive laws have frozen many of these states.

no, doesn't have to do with free. democrats don't want id to be shown because it would be their segment of supporters that might be affected.

so, if there was a poll to show it would affect traditionally republican voters, dems would want it yesterday. you know, not because it's the right thing to do. or that it's logical. it all has to do with how it would affect elections.

That is precisely correct. Voter ID laws that target restriction of voting rights to one specific segment of the population are illegal.

That's why North or South (I can't remember) Carolina's voting law changes were immediately halted by the Justice Department. Clearly restrictive against a particular segment of the population: black voters.

Judge issues injunction against Wisconsin Voter ID Law
 

Breaking this afternoon. Good news: 220,000 or more current voters will not be wrongly disinfranchised and wrongly prevented from voting in the next election.

From WisStateJournal:

A Dane County judge on Tuesday barred the enforcement of the state photo ID law at polling places during the general election on April 3, calling it an "extremely broad and largely needless" impairment of the right to vote.

Circuit Judge David Flanagan said the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera had demonstrated that their lawsuit against Gov. Scott Walker and the state Government Accountability Board would probably succeed on its merits and had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm if the photo ID law is allowed to stand. (Read the injunction here)

Flanagan granted a temporary injunction ordering Walker and the GAB to "cease immediately any effort to enforce or implement the photo identification requirements" of the law, pending a trial on a permanent injunction scheduled before him on April 16.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...#ixzz1oO4iAYJN

Did you forget to mention that the so called impartial judge that granted this injuction signed a recall petition against walker. So much for being impartial. But why report all the facts but just for your info


Records show Flanagan signed the Walker recall petition on Nov. 15. The petition lists Flanagan's wife, Maureen McGlynn Flanagan, as the one who circulated the petitiion.

Contacted Tuesday, McGlynn Flanagan - a former assistant attorney general - confirmed that she had gathered signatures in hopes of recalling the first-term Republican governor. She also confirmed that her husband had signed one of the petitions that she circulated.

The Journal Sentinel left a message with Flanagan's chambers asking whether he had signed a recall petition. His clerk called back to say Flanagan would only answer questions submitted in writing at the courthouse.

State Republican Party spokesman Ben Sparks said his party will be filing a complaint with the state Judicial Commission asking it to investigate why Flanagan did not recuse himself.

"The very fact that Dane County Judge David Flanagan signed a petition to recall Governor Walker calls today's court proceedings regarding Wisconsin's voter ID law into question," Sparks said in a statement. "To make matters more troubling, Judge Flanagan also lists Melisa Mulliken, a longtime adviser to Kathleen Falk, as his campaign manager on his offical campaign web page."

So? You say the judge cannot follow the law and enjoy his legal rights as a citizen? And do something that is not disqualifying from the case under our legal system?

And instead of making this a personal attack against me, and accusing me falsely of withholding information (which is absurd, as all I did was quote two news stories) why don't you just post the info you want added to the discussion? Why do you angry zealots always have to make things personal attacks? Your anger and hate and personalization of opposition into personalized hate for "the opposite side" is the problem with everything wrong in this country's government right now.

Wow, you guys really have zero respect for the law, don't you?

Please, go ahead and show how that affected the rule of law. Do you not realize the trial is April 16?

Let me get some popcorn while the Walkerites and their acolytes twist themselves into pretzels in an effort to decry "judicial activism" and institute personal smears, with their massively hypocritical history of Judge Prosser :D

Actually, the utter disrespect shown for the law in Wisconsin isn't funny at all. It's pathetic and sad. Face it: the voter ID law is under injunction -meaning it cannot be used in the April election - until the trial.

I have to go check Intrade, see the current odds on "recall vs perp walk" happening first for Scott Walker.

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision? Did you miss the fact that his campaign manager is a long time advisor to Kathleen Falk? If it is strictly as black and white as you say it is why did this specific judge do the injunction? and why not one who didn't have a specific obvious political agenda?

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way? Sorry, no: judges do not give up their private rights as citizens when they become judges.

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th. But it's pretty apparent from the injunction decision that the law appears to be readily overturnable on broad, basic legal issues. Which has zero to do with a judges allegedly private, legal voting record.

The injunction lists the multiple legal reasons the judge feels the case will not proceed on it's merits April 16th. It is a roadmap to the opposition about what the judge will rule based upon the law.

Apparently, those in favor of the law can't come up with any legal responses to that, and are left with trying to disqualify the judge. So, get another judge. Have the case delayed even longer. The same decision will most likely be rendered. This isn't rocket science, or complicated. It's voting law, it's very clear and simple. The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disinfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.

Attacking the judge and attempting to get a different judge is certainly a valid lawyer tactic, but it's rather indicative that those wanting the law implemented have zero legal argument to support the law.

Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election? No he signed a recall petition trying to overturn the decision of a prior election. What about his obvious ties to the chosen one of the unions Kathleen Falk?

The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disenfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.



It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license. What was not estimated was how many people of those 220,000 are actually registered to vote or how many of those people didn't have the ability to find a way to get a state issued ID (since the government is willing to pay for the IDs for those who can't afford it). The constitution says that you have the right to vote, but it also states the right to bear arms. Try getting a gun without a ID.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

So you are maintaining the judge is not a fair and impartial judge, but is strictly political. And that judges cannot be fair and impartial due to their personal political leanings?

Wow - guess the Founding Fathers blew that one!

Can you demonstrate how that is so? Is that based upon his previous performance as a judge? Or how you act?

The trial is April 16th. The legal team can come up with arguments against what the judge has outlined in his reasoning for the injunction. Or, they can try for a different judge.

I wonder why they didn't ask for a different judge immediately, when his name was announced to hear the case? No reason?

Well, no. It was expert testimony that currently over 220,000 people do not currently meet the new law voting requirements, and the important part is that disinfranchised group was overwhelmingly not representative of the voting public at large. They are specific individual different groups. That makes the law discriminatory.

???? What does that have to do with the expert testimony that the law discriminates against specific groups? That is the illegal part!

Potential disinfranchisees are not required, by law, to attempt to fulfill the law, as proof that the law is discriminatory. That's absurd <g> You are saying that the victims of the discrimination have no choice.

Are you serious the judge was bias!
 

Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case. He signed the recall the first day and is clearly bias to walker. Another attorney in the article said the judge should have excused himself. You tell me if that isn't being bias. What is really sad, is showing an id is not a bad thing. Every person does it everyday. I've worked at a bar, and no matter what your age you have to show a picture id to get in the bar! Its not that big of a deal and it is the right thing! I can't wait til the recall vote and walker wins by a landslide! Then all you train lovers can shut up!

Really? The judge has issued a detailed legal preliminary injunction for all to see. What part of that legal detail is so out of expected for a judicial ruling, in keeping with current, detailed Wisconsin Voting Law, that makes one think the judge ruled weirdly?

And further, that the demonstrable non-adherence to Wisconsin Voting Law was based upon bias?

What ridiculous, non-reality based accusations.

This isn't a effing joke. These are serious accusations against a judge, his life, his work.

The laughable thing is that, for people to make those accusations, reveals that that is the way they, themselves, would probably act.

The trial is April 16th. A recusal may be asked for at that time.

If there are 220,000 people that are disenfranchised by this voter ID required than doesn't current gun legislation disenfranchise that same segment then? I don't own a gun nor do I even like guns but if that is the basis for your argument the constitution has already been violated with the current gun laws. Those so called 220,000+ people that do not have an ID or can't reasonable obtain one can not legally own a gun even though the constitution provides:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I don't see where it says that we need an ID to bear arms, but yet we do.

In today's world nothing can be done without an ID. You can't buy cigarettes, cough medicine, go to a bar, drive a car, obtain a bank account, fly on a plane, etc without an ID, but you can vote for the politicians without an ID that are spending your hard earn tax dollars.

As far as voting the constitution says:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Couldn't you argue that you need an ID to prove that you are 18

Editorial in madison paper saying judge should have known better!
 

If he isn't being bias, then explain to me why in the madison paper they say the judge should know better! "He's supposed to be impartial, not actively involved in the issues that come before him." "Judges are similarly supposed to strive hard to stay and appear impartial and independent in every case they rule on. And if they can't, they're supposed to disclose any conflicts and, if warranted, recuse themselves." This is from the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. You tell me now how he isn't being bias? Check it out in todays paper. My favorite quote is there last sentence in the editorial, "Judge Flanagan should have known better." Just like you getting involved in wisconsin politics!

My concern is those 200,000 are being disenfranchised from playing cornhole as most places require an ID to get a set of bags. ;)

The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.

Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

And if you had only spelled "argument" correctly during your lecture on spelling, you might have had a point :D

Got me.

Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go

i have tried to get a lot spelled correctly, so good luck with that.

Guns laws have nothing to do with this. That's merely an argument for why the proposed new law was written.

What is pertinent now is Wisconsin's Voting Laws, which are very well-written and one of the most detailed and inclusive of all the fifty states, regarding outlining Wisconsin citizens freedom to vote.

Again: the judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this newly proposed law is objectively measurably restrictive to certain groups, disenfranchising them, and thus goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law regarding maintaining Wisconsin voters rights.

The only way the new law gets implemented is if that changes.

So if I were you, I would quote sections out of the PDF detail of the Judge's decision - the actual reasons why the new law does not comply with the lawful standards Wisconsin has established - and show why the judge is incorrect in interpreting the law in that specific way.

We will see what happens. I disagree with the whole disenfranchising argument and think it is ridiculous. I think gun laws have a lot to do with the arguement for photo ID since they are both rights guaranteed under the US constitution.

The majority of WI disagrees with the democrats on this issue so the reason why the republicans didn't care too much about this decision at the time it just proves their point for them. Thanks for that one. Nice job on the mining bill as well. Democrats crushed that one with one so called republican. Who needs $1.5 billion in new business 700 plus jobs in an area that needs them. Forget the fact that there were a lot of Union jobs that this would have brought as well and some more business in southeastern WI for Caterpillar, etc. The democrats are writing the TV Ads for Walker

The Koch Brothers, through their out of state organization Americans for Prosperity, are writing ads for Walker, too ;)

Koch Brothers, btw, just forcefully took over the Cato Institute, making the Libertarians angry and kicking them out. This fall's election is going to be nasty. Nothing but big, big money running things.

Well, the pro-voter ID law lawyers may be able to come up with something by April 16th. Or, they'll have to re-write the law to make it non-targeted to specific groups suffering from implementation. Which is doubtful, as that wasn't the point of the law when ALEC sent it out to the Republican Governors to pass for 2012.

Yes. Correcting other people's spelling is as important as ... well, as worrying about other people's capitalization flaws! :$:

Answer the question!
 

What are you just ignoring what the paper quoted! It isn't lawyers saying hes bias, its the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. Yet you just ignore it. Your amazing, even when the answer is in front of you, you ignore the truth. The truth is the judge was BIAS and should have not heard the case. But no you go off on some other tangent. I think you know he was bias and you think ignoring it will make it go away. Your just like these recall idiots a sore loser!

Yes. I am ignoring the "legal opinion" of a newspaper editor in favor of judges and lawyers :D

Where are the lawyers saying the judge is biased? Are there any?

Because, you know, the lawyers had a chance to ask for a recusal when the judge was announced, but they didn't. I wonder why they didn't? Could it be because this judge has no history of bias? For example, in the month before, this judge actually ruled against these very plaintiffs he just gave the injunction to in a different case? Demonstrating ... fairness?

No. That would be a "happy winner" - as long as the injunction holds and the law is thrown out at the trial. I'd guess from your insults you would be the "sore loser".

The Left will fight tooth and nail to keep voter fraud in the equation. They cannot afford to be limited to one vote per person.

Who needs baseless allegations of voter fraud, with actual demographics like this so favorable for The Left and The Middle:

Polls from this past week:

67% of women will not vote Republican.
84% of Latinos will not vote Republican.

Those are loser demographics, impossible to win a national election with those numbers.

Kudos to Dale Schultz for standing up for Wisconsin's beautiful landscape, and against political lying.

Democrats already back peddling their decision on the mining bill and trying to blame the republicans. Way to go democrats you just lost the state over $1.5 billion dollars in outside investment. Union jobs etc lost. That is what you get for backing the democrats. When they need your hard earned $ you gave it to them, when there is a bill that will make it some what viable for a mining company to bring jobs to the state and help employ your union employees the democrats said hell no. Good job. Let's keep trying to make it ridiculously impossible to do business in WI. I know you don't live here, but take a look at the Wisconsin state flag and tell me what is on it?

Reality check: didn't the mining company back out of this deal before this vote, to to falling ore prices?

Rendering the outcome of this vote only relevant to future efforts to destroy the environment in the name of "business"?

Again: Kudos to Schultz for protecting the environment from mining destruction and contamination, and Indian rivers from destruction. That doesn't matter to some. It matters greatly to the majority that voted against the removal of same.

Democracy - it hurts the plutocrats.

wrong, wrong and wrong again. Nice try. The vote had nothing to do with the environment. The mining company most likely will end up in the UP, which might as well be WI. Maybe you should read up. What is on the state flag? Have you looked at it yet?