Another Brilliant Plan Out of WI
 

The Fed should follow.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker is scheduled to sign into law a bill requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Walker planned to sign the bill Wednesday in the Capitol.

It marks the end of an eight-year push by Republicans to enact the photo ID requirement. They passed it three times when Democrat Jim Doyle was governor, but he vetoed it each time.

Republicans say the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud, while Democrats say it's more about disenfranchising voters.

The requirement to show a photo ID when voting would take effect next year, but other changes affecting absentee voting and the ability to vote take effect immediately and would be in force for recall elections this summer.

I'm confused why Dems feel it would disenfranchise voters? DMV does not ask political affiliation and offices are located in both Rep and Dem leaning communities. Are Dems saying illegals and fraudulent voters will be disenfranchised? I believe they should be.

Because, compared to current voter registration poll ID laws, it amounts to narrower requirements that are essentially a poll tax and screening process.

It requires, for example of students, a school picture photo ID - and not one college in Wisconsin issues one of those, and the Republicans know it (which is why they chose it)

It changes the dates you have to live in an area before voting (again, eliminating students).

It forces more people to vote a provisional ballot, which are normally not counted (unless an election goes to recount)

Not everybody has a car, especially elderly. It costs money to get a DMV photo ID (that's a poll tax)

Your ability to vote is not tied to your ability to drive a car, get to the DVM and be able to afford a non-driver ID, the ability to have a bank account, etc. The Republicans are trying to do that, to eliminate people that generally vote Democratic.

No, the Republicans want to disinfranchise students, young new first time voters, etc - those that tend to vote Democratic.

The cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and most have been felons voting when they should not. That's a false reason for changing voting laws.

This isn't a secret Dell - the RGA targeted this action for it's governors before the 2012 election as a necessary Republican goal, and they are doing it in multiple states.

everyone over 18 has access to an ID card. And it is really stupid not to have one (and this has nothing to do with the bill)

I had to show one in FL the last time I voted.

Yes - right now, dependent upon state, there are a variety of ID's one can show, including ID by a worker who knows you, that enable you to cast a regular vote (not a provisional one).

The Republican plan is to markedly narrow those requirements, and change how people can be registered to vote, eliminate some of the things that enable voting now, and the ways some people can register (for example, you can register to vote at the DMV in most states)

Google voting requirements for your state, and you can read what enables you to vote now.

Narrower voting requirements is being done in an attempt to disinfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic. The GOP knows this - that's why they are doing it. This is like redistricting - it's strictly an election, political move. The Republicans have been trying it for years, and now with so many GOP govs, they are making an aggressive push to make it harder for citizens to vote before the 2012 fall.

Actually I believe most universities in the state do have photo ID's. I still have one from UWM and that was over 15 yrs ago. I would be surprised that they do not have photo ID's in the state universities. You usually need it to get into many of the different facilities on campus (ie- health center, gym, library, etc)

If the an elderly person doesn't have a car and can't drive how would they vote? If they can find a way to vote, don't you think they can find a way to get an ID. Actually the state is willing with this bill I believe to pay for the photo ID's for those who supposidely can't afford to pay the $10-25 it would cost to get a state issued ID.

It amazes me that the people that can't seem to afford the ID's or would be disenfranchised by this can find a way to get thru all the red tape and obtain food stamps and other governement entitlement programs, which are much harder to obtain then simply getting a photo ID.

The news is saying they do not, and it would cost millions to change them over. So? Don't know. I was surprised about the no photo thing.

Absentee. They have changed the time frame on being able to do that, to make that more restrictive. And I know that around here, there are buses that bring the elderly to the polls to vote.

This is a blatent attempt to disinfranchise and make voting rights more restrictive. They've been trying to do so for years without success. I would think every American would be against that. Especially the most conservative folks. It's been proven that "voter fraud" isn't a big problem anywhere. So why should any of this be changed in the first place? Why is it justified to change the law in the face of ... not a problem currently? The RGA admits that this will make it harder for voters that tend to lean Democratic to vote. That is the whole point of doing it, and everyone knows it. It's a political ploy.

Because voter fraud is very hard to prove. There have been many stories of political groups going around and giving smokes or cash to people if they go and vote. There is nothing restrictive about showing a photo ID. If the government is willing to pay for everyone to have a photo ID what is the issue? You need a photo ID to buy cough syrup. How else can you prove that the person that actually voted is the same person recorded in voting records? How would you know there is fraud if there is no way to prove the fraud? Is your real name Lena Taylor?

That wouldn't be corrected by showing a photo ID, would it?

If those people are registered voters, that's electioneering. Not voter fraud. They are absolutely entitled to vote.

And if they are not registered to vote, they can't vote - can they? - unless they follow the current voter law for provisional voting.

Face it - voter fraud is a red herring for this change.

When the current ID types available to enable one to vote are arbitrarily changed so that only one or two types of ID are now required, and it's markedly more restrictive, that take a particular effort or cost (poll tax) obtain, that's absolutely a restriction of voting rights with the purposeful attempt to disinfranchise particular groups of voters.

Not to mention the changing of dates to register, the residence requirements, etc.

This is a blatent attack on the voting rights of American citizens, certain demographics deliberately targeted by the RGA, and everyone knows it - it is no secret.

Gee - the very way we do it now?

How would you know there is fraud when you don't see it? Imaginary boogeymen?

In WI you can register to vote day of the election at the polling place.
So bribing people to go vote is electioneering, but requiring them to show a photo id is disenfranchising. I get it now. Thanks

And what happens to that vote? Depends on what the election is for, right? You might check out your own election laws. They are on the internet, just google "voting requirement Wisconsin".

They have to show ID now. Maybe you should go read your current voting laws before you change them.

No you do not have to show ID to vote. You don't have to show an ID to register to vote either. You do have to show something with your address on it to register to vote, but once registered you do not have to show anything to vote. That person could have moved, etc and could be voting twice

Marquette had photo IDs as recently as when I went there...unless they changed it since.

The incidences of voter fraud in your state are very low.

To vote on day of election, or to register to vote, you have to provide the following (this is only part of the requirements, there are residency time requirements, too): (and if you do not show these, you can only cast a provision ballot in the federal election only that is not automatically counted)

from Wis.gov

pretty much all colleges issue photo ID's. I'm not sure where she pulled that one from.

From repeated press reports on the subject. From members in the Wisc assembly. One of the television stations even had an administration official from one of the colleges interviewed (I don't know if it's U Wisconsin, or what) that said no, they don't give photo id's that would meet the requirements.

Maybe it's that they only have a photo with no address or signature, etc. I do know the Republicans deliberately wrote the law so that current school id's in Wisconsin cannot be used.

Sigh .. off to google.

BTW, Walker already signed it today, and it will be challenged constitutionally, of course

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...122588869.html

thats right, i forgot, Republicans are evil.

...and Google is good. They aren't evil scum.

So if a person is registered to vote in Milwaukee, but moves to Waukesha 60 days ago and has a utility bill in Waukesha now they could vote in both Milwaukee where they are currently registered and in Waukesha where they now have a utility bill in since they could register the day of the election. Someone else could be voting under someone else's name that is a registered voter as well if they knew their name and address since we don't require proof that they are the person they say they are.

Here's a thought... if you dont have an photo ID card, and you want to vote, how about go and get a photo ID? I mean they have a year to prepare for this. If voting is important to you, all you have to do is bring a valid form of identification.

I had to show it here in Florida, and the world didnt end. At least not yet.

Should be a requirement you have to show the electronic long form birth certificate...not the physical copy. They'll believe it.

and guess what... you actually CAN use your student ID to vote in Wisconsin, according to the new law. As long as the ID has not expired and you have to prove you are currently enrolled.

Who would have thought?

And the occurance of the above is how much? Thousands? Millions?

That's why when you move, you have to register in your new precinct, in order to vote there. Otherwise - boom, there you are again with the provision ballot that isn't counted.

Amazing how those current laws work to keep voter fraud in the single digits year after year after year in Wisconsin! :tro:

Sad that the Koch Brothers Republican Governors Association has as it's stated goal making voting laws harder, so less people can readily vote - especially those Democratic-leaning ones.

Sad American citizens sign on to that discrimination.

But don't you get it then they can't cheat the system. Riot believes there is no fraud, but without a photo ID it is impossible to prove what person actually cast that vote so it is impossible to prove fraud. The same person that will be disenfranchised by the so called photo ID receives some sort of government entitlement whether it be medicare, medicaid, food stamps, social security etc which require much more work and effort than simply obtaining an ID

You don't have a year to prepare if you move. And if Wisconsin changed the law so you can no longer get one on weekends before the election when you are not working.

I really, really did not feel discriminated against the last time I voted and had to bust out the driver ID

Because you had one. I just showed my license last Tuesday to vote in the primary. But if I didn't have it with me, I would have been allowed to vote.

Wait until someone tells grandma who has lived in the same house for decades, who knows the poll workers, who has voted in that precinct her entire life that she can't vote this time because she stopped driving 2 years ago and her license is expired and no, she didn't need to go get a new non-driver photo ID so doesn't have anything.

The point is not the photo ID. The point is making it deliberately more difficult than it is now to be able to vote, by changing the voting laws to make them more restrictive, and the deliberate way it is being done is to disenfranchise the poor and non-whites, students, the elderly. It's disgusting.

How are poor people that don't have cars, and can't take a day off work to stand at the DMV, supposed to get one? How is grandma in the nursing home supposed to get one?

No. Stop misstating what I've said. I've said there is fraud, and it's so low it's in the single digits. It is entirely possible to prove who voted where (signatures and crosschecking now) which is [b]why voter fraud is so low.

Wow - your assumptive statement reveals a lot about why the law is being changed by the Republicans. Thanks for admitting that :tro:

You mean except that there's more than what you said: the ID's don't have expiration dates or proof of current enrollment on them? and don't meet all the requirements of the current bill as signed today?

Students will have to bring receipt as proof of paid tuition for the semester with them to the polling place.

Hey, nice! Have fun trying to vote in Wisconsin, students! Good luck with that. Thank the Republican party! We know most students vote Democratic for reasons exactly like this - too bad the Republicans made it so you can't vote! And that's why.

The disenfranchised people you speak of usually don't have a job so Mon-Friday works just fine (poor and elderly). The responsible people who have an ID (which by the way is required by most employers) will find time to go to the DMV and change their address. So that is not an issue.

Yes, we don't want those unemployed or irresponsible people voting! Who cares? That's "not an issue" to quote you. Even if this is America, and every adult over 18 not prohibited by a court is allowed to.

(Except the Republicans want to also add in those damn unemployed freeloaders who are irresponsible - no voting for them, no matter what the Constitution says! They usually vote Democratic, anyways ... )

At least you are honest about it, finally. That is exactly who the Republicans want to disinfranchise.

Is not an assumption it is fact. If they work then they need to cash a check. In order to cash a check they need a photo ID (even at the check cashing place). To open a bank account they need a photo ID. The poor people that you speak of usually are on food stamps or receive medicaid. If they are not then they already need an ID to cash their pay check. The elderly receive social security, medicare or medicaid. You need a photo ID to do just about everything. So what is wrong with the facts

1) If they work they have a photo ID- required by employer and required to cash a check
2) If they don't work they need to have some income coming in thus they are on a government entitlement program
3) If they are elderly they either are independently wealthy or they are on a government entitlement (ie social security, medicare, etc.)

What am I missing

Yeah, the fact is that all the current Republican voting rights removal bills trying to be passed - and the Wisconsin bill signed today - are deliberately discriminatory, and everyone knows it.
That the Constitution doesn't require any of the above to vote. You are. Fail.

"If they don't work they are on a government entitlement program" - are you for real?

typical liberal response. Redirect as much as you can an avoid the facts pointed out above

Nonsense. I'm a moderate conservative, and this bill is discriminatory bull.

Calling me a "typical liberal" may make you feel better about yourself, but doesn't change the fact that you think that poor people not being able to vote is "not an issue".

Can u explain to me how this bill disenfranchises voters since even factoring out all people ages 16and 17 there are more peoplein WI with a photo ID or drivers license then there are registered voters in WI?

There is nothing moderate or conservative in your political comments

You yourself proved my point with your casual lack of concern, your "not an issue" comment about those Americans that won't be able to survive the new Republican Voter Disinfranchisement Test.

Those are exactly the people the Republican party has targeted, and said they want to disinfranchise to help them win in 2012, and you are right with them: "not an issue" in your eyes.

LOL - of course there is. Fiscally conservative, socially responsible, anti-big government, anti-government interference in private lives. That's why I haven't voted Republican in two years, and why I won't for the foreseeable future. The current Republican party no longer represents any of that. I haven't changed. But the Republican party sure has.

Please dispute facts with me. Who are we disenfranchising if there are more residents of WI with a photo ID than registered voters?(even eliminating 16 and 17yr olds) Must be easier to get a photo ID or drivers license than to register to vote.

Also if you are going to use the word the democrats like so much the least you could do is learn how to spell it

The facts are that you support voter tests and voter suppression.

So poor and elderly, and those "not responsible" in your eyes are "not an issue". Yeah, who cares if they can vote! Oh, and you have to have transportation to the DMV.

Yeah, that's really nice. Not what our Constitution says, but hey, it's only the poor, elderly, those you deem irresponsible, right?

Why do you ignore the fact that students will now have to bring a receipt with proof of paid tuition to the polling place with them? That not one school ID in Wisconsin fits the parameters of the new bill signed into law today?

Face it: the Republican Party has revealed themselves as the party of the elite and power-hungry. They don't give a damn about the citizens of this country. Even the "Tea Party" knows the GOP can't accomplish anything. They just lost the NY 26th. They now are only 50-50 to even hold onto the House in 2012. They have moved so far to the right, they've embraced the people literally dragging them off the political landscape. Please, go with them, if that's what you want. Enjoy the political exile, and take Republican Voter Suppression with you.

And let's not forget those poor victims of the tornadoes - who won't get their emergency aid appropriations bill signed until Eric Cantor gets the political budget concessions he wants. And he wasn't even embarrassed to say it in public. Yeah, hell of a party, those Republicans have become. Ronald Reagan wouldn't even pass their "purity test" today as a candidate.

i guess if you want to view this as a bad thing, than it's making it more difficult to vote. or, you could think that maybe they're just making it difficult for non citizens to vote.
you have to be 18 to vote, most people start driving, and thus have a drivers license, at 16.
and if you don't drive, there are state id cards. sorry, don't see the big issue here.

Read the current law and tell me how an out-of-state student in Wisconsin (living there for 4 years including summers on-campus, with no car) will be able to vote - including timeline for registration and ID and tuition proof requirements.

Then tell me why Wiphan isn't held to the same standards.

Then tell me why different standards, applied to different voters, are legal and Constitutional.


Wisconsin just passed the most restrictive voting eligibility law in the country. I can't wait until it's declared unconstitutional under current law.

And that is the anti-big government, anti-government takeover, anti-discrimination, pure libertarian position <g>