Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Riot]

Second Judge Finds Wisconsin's Voter ID Law Unconstitutional

Thursday, 19 July 2012 12:54 By Brendan Fischer

A Wisconsin judge has found that the state's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -inspired voter ID restriction imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, writing that the law "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card."

"That is a lot of people, and most of them are already registered voters," wrote Dane County Judge David Flanagan, making permanent the injunction he issued against the law in March.

In his decision, Judge Flanagan found that the potential burden on voters from Wisconsin's voter ID law -- Act 23 -- was great, but the risk of voter fraud very limited. "Since 2004, voter fraud investigations have been undertaken by the Milwaukee Police Department, by the Mayor of Milwaukee and by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, working with various county prosecutors working through the Attorney General's Election Fraud Task Force," he wrote. "None of these efforts have produced a prosecution of a voter fraud violation that would have been prevented by the voter ID requirements of Act 23."

On balance, the benefits of the law -- stopping the nonexistent voter fraud -- did not outweigh the costs of disenfranchising more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters.

"Act 23 addresses a problem which is very limited, if indeed it exists," Flanagan wrote. "Given the sacred, fundamental interest at issue, it is clear that Act 23, while perhaps addressing a legitimate concern, is not sufficiently narrow to avoid needless and significant impairment of the right to vote."

Additionally, although the law provides for a voter identification card at no charge, Judge Flanagan found that obtaining the ID "can easily be a frustrating, complex and time-consuming process" that "can require the expenditure of an amount of money that is significant for an eligible voter who is indigent."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10434...constitutional

[Clip-Clop]

Judges are always right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1708114.html

Why won't they just listen to the judges?

[Danzig]

yeah, no fraud occurs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48360858...ws-jackson_ms/


well, if they do decide to have yet another run-off, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, no fraud occurs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48360858...ws-jackson_ms/


well, if they do decide to have yet another run-off, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

I don't see in the article where the fraud is on the part of the voters. It says, if I read it right, that more people signed the rolls than apparently actually voted. Which seems to point the blame at the election officials for hiding votes that were legally cast.

Pennsylvania's new law is so cockamamie even the governor couldn't explain it. Voters with valid photo IDs are going to be deprived of their civil right because of non-matching addresses.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't see in the article where the fraud is on the part of the voters. It says, if I read it right, that more people signed the rolls than apparently actually voted. Which seems to point the blame at the election officials for hiding votes that were legally cast.

Pennsylvania's new law is so cockamamie even the governor couldn't explain it. Voters with valid photo IDs are going to be deprived of their civil right because of non-matching addresses.

it doesn't say what the first fraud was, what caused them to have a second recount.
my point wasn't so much about this making a case for id, but the fact that we have election fraud-and there's no excuse for that.
the states typically require that you change the address on your id when you move. far as i know, it's your physical address that's required. it makes sense to make sure your address matches....that would keep someone from being able to vote in their former precinct as well as a new one. we changed voting areas 15 years ago when we bought this house.

in the article i read the other day, and posted here, there are issues both with registration, and with issues at the booth.
there is no excuse, in this day and age, to be having voting irregularities in this country.
there's certainly no reason for us to be having missouri/kansas type voting either.