A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[Riot]

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

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

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."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

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

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

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.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision?

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.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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.

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?

[wiphan]

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election?

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?

It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license.

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 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).

???? 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.