![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |