Voter ID law blocked in Wisconsin

[C_Clayton_Jones]

can we implement the same Voter ID laws for Gun control then?

No, ID for both voting and guns is equally stupid.

Isn't their word good enough??? I mean, no one would lie about who they are, would they?

What’s remarkable about conservatives is they seem to have never heard of something called: voter registration. One documents whom he is when he registers to vote, likely with a birth certificate or photo ID, depending on the state’s laws.

When one goes to vote he tells a poll worker his name. The poll worker then locates the voter’s name in the registration log. If one’s name is not listed, he does not vote.

If the voter believes there is an error, he may request a provisional ballot. Poll workers must inform the voter of the provisional ballot option if the voter is not listed in the registration log and the voter believes he is entitled to vote anyway. The provisional ballot is not counted if election officials are unable to determine the voter is indeed registered.

This is why providing a photo ID every time one votes is unnecessary and why such ‘fraud’ is nonexistent.

Consequently, there is only a partisan motive to require a photo ID whenever one votes.

Funny how you need an ID to: Drive a car, get a job, cash a check, legally transfer properties, get a mortgage, get a passport, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, get any form of additional ID that proves who you are...

It’s not funny at all – voting is a fundamental right, the above are not.

‘Papers, Please!’ The authoritarian conservative is the greatest threat to our civil liberties.

 

[thereisnospoon]

can we implement the same Voter ID laws for Gun control then?

No, ID for both voting and guns is equally stupid.

Isn't their word good enough??? I mean, no one would lie about who they are, would they?

What’s remarkable about conservatives is they seem to have never heard of something called: voter registration. One documents whom he is when he registers to vote, likely with a birth certificate or photo ID, depending on the state’s laws.

When one goes to vote he tells a poll worker his name. The poll worker then locates the voter’s name in the registration log. If one’s name is not listed, he does not vote.

If the voter believes there is an error, he may request a provisional ballot. Poll workers must inform the voter of the provisional ballot option if the voter is not listed in the registration log and the voter believes he is entitled to vote anyway. The provisional ballot is not counted if election officials are unable to determine the voter is indeed registered.

This is why providing a photo ID every time one votes is unnecessary and why such ‘fraud’ is nonexistent.

Consequently, there is only a partisan motive to require a photo ID whenever one votes.

Funny how you need an ID to: Drive a car, get a job, cash a check, legally transfer properties, get a mortgage, get a passport, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, get any form of additional ID that proves who you are...

It’s not funny at all – voting is a fundamental right, the above are not.

‘Papers, Please!’ The authoritarian conservative is the greatest threat to our civil liberties.

First..There are many states which restrict gun use and ownership. ID is required for purchase and ownership. Guns must be registered with the state and/or local authorities.
Gun use is restricted in many places. For example in my town in NC it is illegal to discharge ANY firearm within 500 feet of any residence or otherwise occupied building.
So please, stop the fake indignation on gun rights and voting rights. There is no comparison.
You are the greatest threat to freedom.
Voter fraud is anti-freedom. Voting fraud is an outrage. How you could support this activity is an outrage.
Anyone who opposes voter ID supports voter fraud. It has to be that way. There is no other explanation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Madison - A Dane County judge will rule on whether to permanently block the state's new voter ID law on Monday, less than a week after a different judge blocked the law for the short term.

Dane County Judge Richard Niess said from the bench Friday he would rule Monday on whether the requirement to show photo identification at the polls violates the state constitution.

His announcement came three days after Dane County Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction halting the photo ID requirement for the April 3 election.

On Friday, the state Department of Justice asked Flanagan to stay his injunction while it appeals the case.

Flanagan has come under fire because he signed a petition to recall Gov. Scott Walker, who approved the voter ID law and is named in the case he heard. Niess did not sign the recall petition, according to his office.

The ruling that will come out Monday is in a case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin that argues the state constitution allows the Legislature to exclude felons and mentally incompetent people from voting, but not other classes of people. The new law creates a new category of people who cannot vote - those without photo ID - and thus violates the state constitution, the lawsuit argues.

Whether Wisconsin's photo ID law will stand is widely considered to be decided by a higher court. In addition to the two Dane County cases, there are two challenges to the law in federal court in Milwaukee.

Judge to decide Monday on whether to permanently block voter ID - JSOnline

You are supposed to seek medical attention if your hard-on (which robs blood from your brain) lasts more than four hours.

You brain needs all the blood it can get. At this point any would be good as it seems it is getting nothing.

Chris is quite the piece of work.... and he claims to be 58+ years old to boot!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yeah, God forbid they require that you prove you are who you say you are before you can vote. The lefts motives on this issue are so obvious it's laughable.

hmmmm does this mean that they can limit the right to own a gun? if they limit one right, they can limit all rights

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is a need for Voter ID about as much as there is a need for you to spin like a top to vote.

No proponent of Voter ID has ever started out by stating a case of voter fraud which could only have been solved with voter ID and not fixed by proper maintenance of voter registration. And that is a dead giveaway there is no need for it.

Instead, we are offered imaginary scenarios, and if we don't buy into these pipe dreams we must have some kind of ulterior motive. Asking for evidence of a need for Voter ID is just using too much brainpower for your own good.

Two and a quarter centuries of voting without a single instance of voter fraud which could only have been prevented by an ID, and yet someone gets some night sweats over an illusion and we are all supposed to fall in line and go along with it? What kind of idiocy is that kind of thinking?

You actually want MORE government regulations for voting? And that is a conservative position? Really?

If dead people are voting, it is because they are still on the voter registration rolls. So it should be blazingly obvious the problem is improperly maintained voter registration rolls. But it appears this simple concept is just too much to figure out for some people.

Makes me wonder if they have ever actually registered to vote.


But, as we all know, no one EVER steals another person's identity! No sir! Never happens! So Voter ID will fix EVERYTHING.

Even imaginary fears.

Just like the libs/progressives are so fond of using anecdotal and imaginary examples to support their demands, i.e. Fluke's most recent anecdotal example of a "friend" with ovarian cysts who was unable to get proper treatment? In the case of voter ID, there are tons of stupid anecdotal examples tossed out by libs: poor people without cars to get to the DMV, housebound seniors, people unable to come up with documentation of their legitimacy. Just which faction appears to believe blacks and hispanics are too stupid, lazy, or inept that they are completely incapable of acquiring something as simple as a state ID?

 

[Syphon]

The restrictions for arms is already in place.


Tissue?

except the right wants to repeal that law....
Repeal The Lautenberg Amendment | Gun Control Kills .com
Arizona House Votes To Repeal Gun-Free School Zones
LP-Pres: Carl Person Calls for Repeal of Gun Control Laws | Independent Political Report

No id to vote, no id to purchase a firearm.

Sounds fair.......... Both are rights.

I can live with that.

 

[Syphon]

Yeah, God forbid they require that you prove you are who you say you are before you can vote. The lefts motives on this issue are so obvious it's laughable.

hmmmm does this mean that they can limit the right to own a gun? if they limit one right, they can limit all rights

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

 

[gallantwarrior]

hmmmm does this mean that they can limit the right to own a gun? if they limit one right, they can limit all rights

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

Nope, trading voter ID for more gun laws? Not a quid pro quo issue. Well, not for intelligent folk...

 

[Syphon]

There are limits on who can own a gun, or hadn't you heard that yet?

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

Nope, trading voter ID for more gun laws? Not a quid pro quo issue. Well, not for intelligent folk...

so youre ok limiting one right but not another?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The point was will the right stop campaigning against gun laws if the get voter ID laws. So will you?

Nope, trading voter ID for more gun laws? Not a quid pro quo issue. Well, not for intelligent folk...

so youre ok limiting one right but not another?

No one is proposing limiting voting rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, clearly the consistent, appropriate, and likely Constitutional approach is to require photo ID for neither gun ownership nor voting, as both are cherished rights protected by the Founding Document.

 

[Syphon]

Nope, trading voter ID for more gun laws? Not a quid pro quo issue. Well, not for intelligent folk...

so youre ok limiting one right but not another?

No one is proposing limiting voting rights.

if you make a requirement to vote you are limiting the right to vote. same way the right claims that background checks and waiting periods violate the right to bear arms. all im simply saying is that if the right gets their way and gets voting ID laws, will they stop complaining about gun laws?

i dont have a problem with voting ID laws, i have an ID and i will vote as is my right. im just using guns laws as a comparison.

 

[gallantwarrior]

so youre ok limiting one right but not another?

No one is proposing limiting voting rights.

if you make a requirement to vote you are limiting the right to vote. same way the right claims that background checks and waiting periods violate the right to bear arms. all im simply saying is that if the right gets their way and gets voting ID laws, will they stop complaining about gun laws?

i dont have a problem with voting ID laws, i have an ID and i will vote as is my right. im just using guns laws as a comparison.

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

 

[Syphon]

No one is proposing limiting voting rights.

if you make a requirement to vote you are limiting the right to vote. same way the right claims that background checks and waiting periods violate the right to bear arms. all im simply saying is that if the right gets their way and gets voting ID laws, will they stop complaining about gun laws?

i dont have a problem with voting ID laws, i have an ID and i will vote as is my right. im just using guns laws as a comparison.

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

 

[gallantwarrior]

if you make a requirement to vote you are limiting the right to vote. same way the right claims that background checks and waiting periods violate the right to bear arms. all im simply saying is that if the right gets their way and gets voting ID laws, will they stop complaining about gun laws?

i dont have a problem with voting ID laws, i have an ID and i will vote as is my right. im just using guns laws as a comparison.

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

I'm not sure how your state handles voter registration, but in AK, you register to vote at the DMV or online. You have to establish your residency and provide one of the following documents in order to receive a voter registration card: current and valid photo identification; driver's license; passport; state identification card; or birth certificate. You also have to present a photo ID or your voter registration card and sign the roster when you go to the polls. Given the geography of Alaska, it is pretty amazing that we don't appear to have the problems other states have getting people registered and to the polls when it's time to vote.
I guess it's a matter of how important voting is to the individual, whether they care enough to acquire the required documentation. One thing is certain, as the system is set up now, the cheaters have the upper hand.

 

[Syphon]

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

I'm not sure how your state handles voter registration, but in AK, you register to vote at the DMV or online. You have to establish your residency and provide one of the following documents in order to receive a voter registration card: current and valid photo identification; driver's license; passport; state identification card; or birth certificate. You also have to present a photo ID or your voter registration card and sign the roster when you go to the polls. Given the geography of Alaska, it is pretty amazing that we don't appear to have the problems other states have getting people registered and to the polls when it's time to vote.
I guess it's a matter of how important voting is to the individual, whether they care enough to acquire the required documentation. One thing is certain, as the system is set up now, the cheaters have the upper hand.

you can also register to vote at any post office by simply filling out the form or getting it off the net printing it and mailing it in. neither of which require an ID

 

[thereisnospoon]

if you make a requirement to vote you are limiting the right to vote. same way the right claims that background checks and waiting periods violate the right to bear arms. all im simply saying is that if the right gets their way and gets voting ID laws, will they stop complaining about gun laws?

i dont have a problem with voting ID laws, i have an ID and i will vote as is my right. im just using guns laws as a comparison.

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

Nice try...The moment a person applies for credit, gets a SS Card, drivers license, buy a home, opens a business or any number of countless other acts, their information goes into a public database.
Since there is no Constitutional right to privacy, the point you make is moot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

I'm not sure how your state handles voter registration, but in AK, you register to vote at the DMV or online. You have to establish your residency and provide one of the following documents in order to receive a voter registration card: current and valid photo identification; driver's license; passport; state identification card; or birth certificate. You also have to present a photo ID or your voter registration card and sign the roster when you go to the polls. Given the geography of Alaska, it is pretty amazing that we don't appear to have the problems other states have getting people registered and to the polls when it's time to vote.
I guess it's a matter of how important voting is to the individual, whether they care enough to acquire the required documentation. One thing is certain, as the system is set up now, the cheaters have the upper hand.

NC has "motor voter"..All persons either getting their license for the first time or renewing their license are offered the opportunity to register for the vote.
This can also be done at one's local or County elections office.
At the time one registers, they are required to identify themselves Several forms of documentation are acceptable but are required.

 

[Syphon]

Then how would you suggest we stem the increase in voter fraud? There were certainly too many verified instances in recent elections, it seems to be increasing, and it definitely affects the outcome of elections.

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

Nice try...The moment a person applies for credit, gets a SS Card, drivers license, buy a home, opens a business or any number of countless other acts, their information goes into a public database.
Since there is no Constitutional right to privacy, the point you make is moot.

there is no constitutional right to a credit, drivers license, buy a home or opens a business. you can actually get a SS card at birth with no ID as well, and a SS card has no photo identification on it.

there actually is a constitutional right to privacy as was determined in several supreme court decisions. you may disagree with the decision, but that does not change the fact this the right to privacy has been granted.

The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.


The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

 

[gallantwarrior]

any attempt to use a voter ID system of any kind will be met with resistance. for example:

if when you registered, the government took your picture as ID and kept it in a database, people would claim invasion of privacy or certain people would refuse because they dont want their information in a government database. or if you required fingerprints, people would have the same objection. i would suggest an online voting system but then those without access to a computer or internet would be left out. im not sure there is a good fix at this point in time. do you have any suggestions?

I'm not sure how your state handles voter registration, but in AK, you register to vote at the DMV or online. You have to establish your residency and provide one of the following documents in order to receive a voter registration card: current and valid photo identification; driver's license; passport; state identification card; or birth certificate. You also have to present a photo ID or your voter registration card and sign the roster when you go to the polls. Given the geography of Alaska, it is pretty amazing that we don't appear to have the problems other states have getting people registered and to the polls when it's time to vote.
I guess it's a matter of how important voting is to the individual, whether they care enough to acquire the required documentation. One thing is certain, as the system is set up now, the cheaters have the upper hand.

you can also register to vote at any post office by simply filling out the form or getting it off the net printing it and mailing it in. neither of which require an ID

In Alaska?