Just when you think Wisconsin is getting it right: Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why...

JetJock Loc: Texas

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN YACCINO APRIL 29, 2014

Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of Wisconsins State Assembly.CreditJohn Hart/Wisconsin State Journal, via Associated Press
Continue reading the main story
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsins law requiring v**ers to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis the V****g Rights Act for similar challenges playing out around the nation.
Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the states 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the V****g Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizens right to v**e based on race or color.
I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination, Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. B****s and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.
In Wisconsin, the photo identification requirement approved by Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the State Legislature was already delayed following rulings in state court. But Judge Adelmans finding citing Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act, more often a factor in cases related to redistricting, is certain to draw note from those involved in other v**er identification challenges, including cases brought by the Department of Justice in North Carolina and Texas, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in e******n law.
Advocates of v**er identification laws, who say that the provisions prevent potential fraud and promote public confidence in the v****g process, have long looked to a 2008 United States Supreme Court decision on the matter in Indiana, where the law was upheld.
But opponents, who say the laws are really aimed at suppressing the turnout of Democrats, have been buoyed by a series of recent court rulings, including a state court finding in January striking down Pennsylvanias law and another last week in Arkansas, which found the law there in violation of the states Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary stay to a portion of that ruling, and has called for the submission of legal briefs on the question by Friday.
In Wisconsin, the decision grew out of two lawsuits against officials brought on behalf of state residents, including older people, college students and members of minority groups. J. B. Van Hollen, the attorney general, said he planned to appeal. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Walker, said the governors office was reviewing the decision for any potential action.
Yet the order posed an immediate challenge for state Republican leaders who had earlier indicated they might soon call a special session to approve a revised law one that could presumably pass court muster and go into effect before this years e******ns, which include the governors race.
Judge Adelman enjoined the state from requiring v**ers to provide identification cards, and required officials to seek legal approval of any revised law. The judge pledged to expedite hearings on any rewritten law, but wrote that it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result.
In an interview, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said the judges ruling had been politically motivated. He used his personal bias to say that v**er ID is just wrong, Mr. Vos said of Judge Adelman, who was formerly a Democratic state lawmaker and who was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.
Our intention was never to make it hard to v**e, Mr. Vos said of the v**er identification law known as Act 23. All we want to do is make sure we have some reasonable proof that people are who they say they are.
But in his decision, Judge Adelman said, There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from v****g without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate v**es from being cast than fraudulent v**es.

Caboose Loc: South Carolina

JetJock wrote:

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN YACCINO APRIL 29, 2014

Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of Wisconsins State Assembly.CreditJohn Hart/Wisconsin State Journal, via Associated Press
Continue reading the main story
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsins law requiring v**ers to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis the V****g Rights Act for similar challenges playing out around the nation.
Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the states 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the V****g Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizens right to v**e based on race or color.
I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination, Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. B****s and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.
In Wisconsin, the photo identification requirement approved by Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the State Legislature was already delayed following rulings in state court. But Judge Adelmans finding citing Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act, more often a factor in cases related to redistricting, is certain to draw note from those involved in other v**er identification challenges, including cases brought by the Department of Justice in North Carolina and Texas, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in e******n law.
Advocates of v**er identification laws, who say that the provisions prevent potential fraud and promote public confidence in the v****g process, have long looked to a 2008 United States Supreme Court decision on the matter in Indiana, where the law was upheld.
But opponents, who say the laws are really aimed at suppressing the turnout of Democrats, have been buoyed by a series of recent court rulings, including a state court finding in January striking down Pennsylvanias law and another last week in Arkansas, which found the law there in violation of the states Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary stay to a portion of that ruling, and has called for the submission of legal briefs on the question by Friday.
In Wisconsin, the decision grew out of two lawsuits against officials brought on behalf of state residents, including older people, college students and members of minority groups. J. B. Van Hollen, the attorney general, said he planned to appeal. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Walker, said the governors office was reviewing the decision for any potential action.
Yet the order posed an immediate challenge for state Republican leaders who had earlier indicated they might soon call a special session to approve a revised law one that could presumably pass court muster and go into effect before this years e******ns, which include the governors race.
Judge Adelman enjoined the state from requiring v**ers to provide identification cards, and required officials to seek legal approval of any revised law. The judge pledged to expedite hearings on any rewritten law, but wrote that it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result.
In an interview, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said the judges ruling had been politically motivated. He used his personal bias to say that v**er ID is just wrong, Mr. Vos said of Judge Adelman, who was formerly a Democratic state lawmaker and who was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.
Our intention was never to make it hard to v**e, Mr. Vos said of the v**er identification law known as Act 23. All we want to do is make sure we have some reasonable proof that people are who they say they are.
But in his decision, Judge Adelman said, There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from v****g without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate v**es from being cast than fraudulent v**es.

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every on... (show quote)

I looked up the Judge that struck down the v**er law. She was
a Clinton Appointee. Does that tell you anything? (Lynn Adelmann)

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

JetJock wrote:

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN YACCINO APRIL 29, 2014

Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of Wisconsins State Assembly.CreditJohn Hart/Wisconsin State Journal, via Associated Press
Continue reading the main story
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsins law requiring v**ers to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis the V****g Rights Act for similar challenges playing out around the nation.
Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the states 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the V****g Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizens right to v**e based on race or color.
I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination, Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. B****s and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.
In Wisconsin, the photo identification requirement approved by Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the State Legislature was already delayed following rulings in state court. But Judge Adelmans finding citing Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act, more often a factor in cases related to redistricting, is certain to draw note from those involved in other v**er identification challenges, including cases brought by the Department of Justice in North Carolina and Texas, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in e******n law.
Advocates of v**er identification laws, who say that the provisions prevent potential fraud and promote public confidence in the v****g process, have long looked to a 2008 United States Supreme Court decision on the matter in Indiana, where the law was upheld.
But opponents, who say the laws are really aimed at suppressing the turnout of Democrats, have been buoyed by a series of recent court rulings, including a state court finding in January striking down Pennsylvanias law and another last week in Arkansas, which found the law there in violation of the states Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary stay to a portion of that ruling, and has called for the submission of legal briefs on the question by Friday.
In Wisconsin, the decision grew out of two lawsuits against officials brought on behalf of state residents, including older people, college students and members of minority groups. J. B. Van Hollen, the attorney general, said he planned to appeal. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Walker, said the governors office was reviewing the decision for any potential action.
Yet the order posed an immediate challenge for state Republican leaders who had earlier indicated they might soon call a special session to approve a revised law one that could presumably pass court muster and go into effect before this years e******ns, which include the governors race.
Judge Adelman enjoined the state from requiring v**ers to provide identification cards, and required officials to seek legal approval of any revised law. The judge pledged to expedite hearings on any rewritten law, but wrote that it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result.
In an interview, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said the judges ruling had been politically motivated. He used his personal bias to say that v**er ID is just wrong, Mr. Vos said of Judge Adelman, who was formerly a Democratic state lawmaker and who was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.
Our intention was never to make it hard to v**e, Mr. Vos said of the v**er identification law known as Act 23. All we want to do is make sure we have some reasonable proof that people are who they say they are.
But in his decision, Judge Adelman said, There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from v****g without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate v**es from being cast than fraudulent v**es.

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every on... (show quote)

I would say the basic issue is it a choice or an Obligation.

Is it the rule of the land that every one must have a proper ID. Then I would say that if that is not the case then there is no case that you can take away a persons right to v**e.

If you feel there is that need to have a proper ID to v**e then you need to set up the system of having the proper ID for all.
You need to do this at no additional cost to the person involved. You can't charge a person to v**e it is a free right.

The thing is to v**e one needs to show here one lives.
For the most part one only needs to show that the person pays a bill at the current address.

Let's just say that the system mostly has & dose work.

Work on what it will take to build the system of a universal ID that shows current residence then require it for v****g.

Brian Devon

Caboose wrote:

I looked up the Judge that struck down the v**er law. She was
a Clinton Appointee. Does that tell you anything? (Lynn Adelmann)

I am glad that Judge Adelman is paying attention. This new rash of v**er I.D. laws is just a revival of Jim Crow, with better "tailoring". Obviously the GOP is losing the demographics game to the Democrats, who are wise enough to consider the opinions of women and minorities. These laws are just a new flavor of minority v**er suppression.

Whenever the GOP is in favor of anything, you can be sure it is designed to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.......which of course they will loudly deny in their best Pinochio voice.

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

[quote=JetJock]Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

So. Just what does having to have an ID to get food stamps, section 8 and welfare have to do with the right to v**e? Think about it.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

JetJock wrote:

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN YACCINO APRIL 29, 2014

Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of Wisconsins State Assembly.CreditJohn Hart/Wisconsin State Journal, via Associated Press
Continue reading the main story
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Wisconsins law requiring v**ers to produce state-approved photo identification cards at polling places, advancing a new legal basis the V****g Rights Act for similar challenges playing out around the nation.
Judge Lynn Adelman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, found that the states 2011 law violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as the V****g Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules that abridge a citizens right to v**e based on race or color.
I find that the plaintiffs have shown that the disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination, Judge Adelman wrote in the decision. B****s and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to drive or participate in other activities for which a photo ID may be required (such as banking, air travel, and international travel) and so they obtain fewer benefits from possession of a photo ID than do individuals who can afford to participate in these activities.
In Wisconsin, the photo identification requirement approved by Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the State Legislature was already delayed following rulings in state court. But Judge Adelmans finding citing Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act, more often a factor in cases related to redistricting, is certain to draw note from those involved in other v**er identification challenges, including cases brought by the Department of Justice in North Carolina and Texas, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in e******n law.
Advocates of v**er identification laws, who say that the provisions prevent potential fraud and promote public confidence in the v****g process, have long looked to a 2008 United States Supreme Court decision on the matter in Indiana, where the law was upheld.
But opponents, who say the laws are really aimed at suppressing the turnout of Democrats, have been buoyed by a series of recent court rulings, including a state court finding in January striking down Pennsylvanias law and another last week in Arkansas, which found the law there in violation of the states Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary stay to a portion of that ruling, and has called for the submission of legal briefs on the question by Friday.
In Wisconsin, the decision grew out of two lawsuits against officials brought on behalf of state residents, including older people, college students and members of minority groups. J. B. Van Hollen, the attorney general, said he planned to appeal. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Walker, said the governors office was reviewing the decision for any potential action.
Yet the order posed an immediate challenge for state Republican leaders who had earlier indicated they might soon call a special session to approve a revised law one that could presumably pass court muster and go into effect before this years e******ns, which include the governors race.
Judge Adelman enjoined the state from requiring v**ers to provide identification cards, and required officials to seek legal approval of any revised law. The judge pledged to expedite hearings on any rewritten law, but wrote that it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result.
In an interview, Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said the judges ruling had been politically motivated. He used his personal bias to say that v**er ID is just wrong, Mr. Vos said of Judge Adelman, who was formerly a Democratic state lawmaker and who was appointed to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton.
Our intention was never to make it hard to v**e, Mr. Vos said of the v**er identification law known as Act 23. All we want to do is make sure we have some reasonable proof that people are who they say they are.
But in his decision, Judge Adelman said, There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from v****g without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate v**es from being cast than fraudulent v**es.

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every on... (show quote)

if v**er ID iz not allowed come next e******n...then i want total civil-unrest that grinds this country to a halt. 'power' iz now a drug to the left and the judges who allow this need to 'feel the wrath.'

Tyster

[quote=Btfkr]

JetJock wrote:

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

So. Just what does having to have an ID to get food stamps, section 8 and welfare have to do with the right to v**e? Think about it.

Quite simply that if you can get a photo ID to suck on the government teet, than you would have one to v**e. Who then is being disenfranchised? If they are so destitute to not be able to get t***sportation to obtain a State ID, then how are they going to get to the polling place? Oh yeah, there are buses to bring them to the polls.. then why not bus these poor people to get a v**er ID? Unless you like the idea of continued illegal v**es.

I don't wish for anyone to not be able to v**e that is legally qualified to do so... but to not require some proof of illegibility is taking away my v**e.

Caboose Loc: South Carolina

Brian Devon wrote:

I am glad that Judge Adelman is paying attention. ... (show quote)

Im sure that you, "the afflicted" , wont be c***ted out of your v**e.

jimahrens Loc: California

You need a Drivers Lic. If what the Judge says is a deterrent for a low income or poverty level individuals. Then the same should hold true with those who can't afford one. You need id to board a plane what is the difference. The difference I see is a corrupt system. l

Floyd Brown wrote:

I would say the basic issue is it a choice or an O... (show quote)

Caboose Loc: South Carolina

[quote=Btfkr]

JetJock wrote:

Fraud is running wild in the blue states. Every one of these folks have to have an ID to get section 8, food stamps, and welfare, why can't they produce it when they v**e?

So. Just what does having to have an ID to get food stamps, section 8 and welfare have to do with the right to v**e? Think about it.

Because we dont need a government that will hand out food stamps and welfare to get v**es.

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

Caboose wrote:

Because we dont need a government that will hand out food stamps and welfare to get v**es.

Thank you, you just made my argument :thumbup: :mrgreen:

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

jimahrens wrote:

You need a Drivers Lic. If what the Judge says is a deterrent for a low income or poverty level individuals. Then the same should hold true with those who can't afford one. You need id to board a plane what is the difference. The difference I see is a corrupt system. l

So. What you are saying is that someone who can't afford an ID is able to afford an airline ticket?

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

Tyster wrote:

Quite simply that if you can get a photo ID to suc... (show quote)

So. Say there is someone who is really anti government, say a TPer type that just doesn't want any form of government issued ID. He should not be allowed to v**e either?

jimahrens Loc: California

What I am saying if it is required to have Id to board plane get welfare and drivers Lic why Is it wrong to require one to v**e.

Btfkr wrote:

So. What you are saying is that someone who can't afford an ID is able to afford an airline ticket?

jimahrens Loc: California

What I am saying if it is required to have Id to board plane get welfare and drivers Lic why Is it wrong to require one to v**e.

Btfkr wrote:

So. What you are saying is that someone who can't afford an ID is able to afford an airline ticket?