Voters will likely not need identification in the upcoming fall elections after a second judge struck down Wisconsin's controversial voter ID law on Tuesday.
Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan ruled Tuesday that the law would be a "substantial impairment of the right to vote" under the state constitution, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
"The immediate effect of his ruling is limited because another Dane County judge, Richard Niess, permanently blocked the voter ID law in March in a case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin," the article said. "Having a second ruling against the law makes it all the more difficult for voter ID proponents to get the law reinstated because they would need to get both orders lifted."
While the ruling takes away the requirement to show a photo ID, other measures remain in place, such as requiring voters to sign a poll book and to live in the same district where they will cast their ballot for 28 consecutive days.
Voters did show a photo ID during the Feb. 21 primary election, but left some voters confused when they hit the polls in April — and no longer needed IDs.
- Related:
After the March rulings, the Republican Party of Flanagan, who had signed a petition to recall Gov. Scott Walker.
The .
"Give me a break. ***" Really? That sure sounds like an absolute conclusion to me! How exactly could one be more absolute? Compare to the way in which revered jurist Learned Hand drafted his rulings on requests for TRO's pending the hearing of a case. Night and day difference! "If you don't want to read the ruling, you shouldn't pretend that you did. The basis for the plaintiff's case and the ruling is the Wisconsin Constitution" Doesn't disenfranchisement mean to arbitrarily prohibit one from exercising a legally protected right that they otherwise possess? Same thing. "Er... if the number of people who are electors…. ***" I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. The objective noticed fact is that state had an election that was held after the implementation of Act 23 and before any Court had enjoined its further implementation. Thus, why shouldn't this election be used as a baseline to determine if in fact implementation of Act 23 would have truly disenfranchised anyone? The Plaintiff's failed to present a single witness who claimed to have been disenfranchised during this election. How do you not see this monumental omission as being both relevant and wholly material to the Plaintiff's entire case?
Actually, what you witnessed was ignorance of and non-compliance with the law - not disenfranchisement. The 'vouching' system that we previously used was far too loose and prone for abuse and fraud. The elector you speak of could have cast a provisional ballot and returned with the proper documentation, had he elected to do so. Good riddance to 'vouching,' something that we NEVER should have embraced in the first place! "This is just frothing-at-the-mouth-level crazy talk. ***" I honestly don't know. And neither do you. That's why a transcript is required. If we're to trust trial judge's findings and summaries of fact, then why do appellate courts require the filing of a transcript from the trial? And we wouldn't typically hear about any complaints from the losing party until such time that an appeal was properly filed. It's also completely possible that the defense really dropped the ball here. In the legal world though, you never presume - you find out! "My apologies, it got lost in there. ***" I fail to see how I'm demanding that the judge commit hypocrisy. Was the entire sentence of "[d]ifficulties may ensue but that is because an unconstitutional regulation had been unwisely attempted," even necessary to convey the reasoning behind his decision? Looks like nothing but judicial dicta to me!
Have a good one!
All valid points. However, when Hoffa personally visited a McD's that was hiring and spoke to the manager/owner, he informed that all the positions available on the website are indeed positions that the company/franchisees are looking to fill immediately. If you looked at the website, you'd see that many of these jobs have been seeking applicants for quite some time. So, why is it taking so long to fill these 800+ very real job opportunities if people are as desperate for work as the numbers suggest they are? You haven't answered that question, did you?
fact 27: "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. 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." In the case of MPD, the Mayor's office and the Milwaukee County DA, how much effort do you think actually went into finding voter fraud? As far as JB Van Hollen's office: http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/01/doj_task_force_charg.php
"How exactly could one be more absolute?" More absolute would be summary judgement, as in Niess' ruling. "Thus, why shouldn't this [Act 23-in-force] election be used as a baseline to determine if in fact implementation of Act 23 would have truly disenfranchised anyone? The Plaintiff's failed to present a single witness who claimed to have been disenfranchised during this election. How do you not see this monumental omission as being both relevant and wholly material to the Plaintiff's entire case?" The judgment includes two examples (n.b. not an exhaustive list) of people who were apparently unable to obtain the required photo ID by the time of the hearing, which was after the February 21st election. Therefore they could not vote in that election.
My point there was not about the merits or demerits of vouching, but rather that the law regarding eligibility to vote had been changed and this family had no idea. The first that most people knew about this change to their ballot access was the day of the election, far too late to do anything about it. Act 23 slapped the duty of identifying and reaching out to those who would need ID onto the GAB, yet provided no appropriation for that despite the fiscal estimate report that said the additional costs could not be absorbed within the GAB's budget. I didn't see any billboards to TV ads. It is one thing to make a new law that changes the penalty for a crime or creates a new one without ensuring that everyone has read it. It is a different situation, however, for someone to have the manner of exercising fundamental Constitutional rights changed without notice, for literally hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites to have no idea that they need to take actions that many can ill-afford until it is too late to do anything about it.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously ruled that "A finding of fact made by a trial judge will not be set aside upon appeal unless it is contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence." (Boutelle v. Chrislaw). If Flanagan were making it all up and the defense actually *did* contest that recent investigations into vote irregularities had not shown any cases of voter fraud that were preventable by photo ID, we would surely be seeing example(s) of such cases plastered everywhere (your SEIU example hasn't even risen to the level of an indictment yet and your link showed no indications of what form the alleged fraud might have been, so we do not know either if fraud actually took place or if it did if it was photo ID-preventable and thus cannot be used as a counterexample). Since there are no counterexamples, by the SC's precedent this finding of fact cannot be overturned on appeal unless new (as yet unreported evidence of enormous public interest) is presented by the defense.
"As I've said before, you're a very sharp guy and should definitely consider a career in the legal profession, as you make a most worthy adversary!" Thanks for the compliment, you tenacious old so-and-so.
"Again, Flanagan presents no independent verification of these facts - he's just presuming that the party witnesses are telling the truth." When you have 40 affidavits (referred to in the TRO ruling) attesting to similar experiences as a result of a law that the defense does not challenge the authenticity of, it is customary to conclude that they all reflect the same truth. "Do you think any of those witnesses introduced their tax returns or medical records as evidence of their asserted and alleged conditions at trial?" Since they're under penalty of perjury if they lie, it seems unlikely that 40 people would all do so in order to benefit themselves... how exactly? It makes no sense. The DA could easily look up the court records referred to and it would be an open and closed case of perjury, yet that hasn't happened. "Without the trial transcript, how do you know that a vigorous defense wasn't asserted and that the credibility of all of these witnesses weren't effectively destroyed during cross-examination pursuant to a RPOP standard?" It would be trivial for the defense to get a summary appellate declaration of mistrial if Flanagan wholly misrepresented their case since he lists 5 examples of these affidavits among his findings of fact. If the defense had in fact been able to demonstrate that any these were untrue (not even all of them) then we'd see that, but we don't.
Wis. Stats. §814.29" Those do not allow for the recovery of fees for obtaining documents by indigents. Well, I _suppose_ you could claim that an indigent could go to a court and under §814.29 ask for court fees to be waived in order to argue before the court that on the basis of Article I Section 9 they should be issued a (say) birth certificate without charge in order to justly be able to exercise their Article III rights (but then that would actually be another constitutional argument against Act 23 that it does not provide for this). "But if Flanagan is going to use the standard that no prosecutions equates to the fact that it therefore must not exist, then I guess he doesn’t believe that littering occurs either, right" False. Seeing litter is an experience common to everyone, and it is trivial for a party to put, well, practically anyone on the stand to testify that littering occurs, thus establishing as a legal fact that littering occurs, whether or not a particular act can be successfully associated with a particular person. On the other hand, to establish photo ID-preventable voter fraud as a legal fact, one needs to find a successful prosecution for it of a perpetrator who could not have done so had photo ID been in place.
"In the case of MPD, the Mayor's office and the Milwaukee County DA, how much effort do you think actually went into finding voter fraud?" Quite a bit actually, here is their report: http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/ElectionResults_2004_VoterFraudInvestigation_MPD-SIU-A2474926.pdf "As far as JB Van Hollen's office: http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/01/doj_task_force_charg.php" You need to read that more carefully. While voter fraud exists, not a single one of those 20 cases would have been prevented by photo ID: 19 of them were by people who were exactly who they claimed to be, and the last was by a man who would have been perfectly positioned to enclose a photocopy of his late wife's ID with her absentee ballot had Act 23 been in place at the time.
"When you have 40 affidavits…." And this proves an independent verification how exactly? Oh yeah, it doesn't. There very well could be 40 liars. Without any kind of independent verification, we'll never know for sure, will we? "Since they're under penalty of perjury if they lie…." Yeah, because no one has ever lied due to the penalty of perjury, have they? The defense could have done a shoddy job of impeachment of the witnesses upon cross-examination, but without the transcript, no one can really say for sure. Having previously been a social worker myself, you'd be surprised how many people lie about their medical and monetary conditions for all kinds of reasons on a regular basis. "If the defense had in fact been able to demonstrate that any these were untrue (not even all of them) then we'd see that, but we don't." We certainly wouldn't be seeing it in Flanagan's order, would we? Only in the trial transcript, which probably hasn't been transcribed yet and most likely won't be unless an appeal to the order is filed. And no, the state wouldn't necessarily file an appeal even if such egregious and unwarranted liberties had been taken by Flanagan, as such a decision would come down to their long term strategy which could be to pursue a more political solution (amendment) as opposed to fighting for a legal solution. Only time will tell the tale on this one.
See, you figured it out and I knew you would - good for you! So how exactly is this a constitutional argument against Act 23 that "does not provide for this," when an adequate remedy at law already exists? Why the need for redundant legislation? While filing a legal action to obtain a birth certificate at zero cost may in fact pose a significant burden, I don't see how it's unduly so considering the interest that's served in protecting the perception of integrity in our electoral process by the Act 23 provisions. It's also customary in the law that a Plaintiff must first exhaust all administrative and other legal remedies that may exist before filing an action seeking declaratory relief from a court. None of the Plaintiffs/witnesses demonstrated at trial that they ever even attempted to exercise their pre-existing legal rights to obtain a free birth certificate to the state if they're truly indigent under the procedure I provided to you. In fact, Flanagan never even made a finding that any of the testifying Plaintiffs/witnesses were in fact indigent, did he? Isn't such an omission a little disturbing to say the least?
Cite your authority in law that mandates that Voter ID preventable fraud can only be proven by the showing of a previous successful prosecution. In fact, no such standard exists. If Flanagan is claiming such, then he's making law and legislating from the bench, and that my friend is a textbook activist. In the law, no facts are presumed unless the court takes judicial notice of them, and nowhere in Flanagan's order does it state that the Court took judicial notice of any facts period.
"More absolute would be summary judgement, as in Niess' ruling." Well, that's an obvious, isn't it? Again, compare the way in which Flanagan wrote the TRO order vs how Judge Learned Hand (who's consider a standard in the legal world) wrote his. Again, there's a night and day difference here with Flanagan making far too many absolute conclusions of both fact and law. "The judgment includes two examples (n.b. not an exhaustive list) of people who were apparently unable to obtain the required photo ID by the time of the hearing, which was after the February 21st election. Therefore they could not vote in that election." Actually, the record provided by Flanagan doesn't indicate that such witnesses ever even attempted or had a desire to vote in that election, does it? You usually have to show a concrete injury before gaining proper standing (which I know was addressed by Flanagan, who word-smithed his way around such requirement) seeking declaratory relief from a court, much like a taxpayer can only challenge the constitutionality of a tax after having first paid it.
Since when does the government ever advertise changes in the law on billboards or TV? There's a presumption in the law that everyone knows the law because 1) it's a part of their civic responsibility to do so, and 2) the open nature of our system of government. Additionally, the opposition to Act 23 made sure that there was plenty of media exposure regarding its ramifications. Your argument is weak, but commendable in its inferred nobility. "The Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously ruled…. ***" Clearly, the SEIU people who voted in that election had no intent to be indefinitely domiciled out of a Milwaukee area travel hotel when they cast such ballots, as they left the state shortly after the election and returned to their respective places of residency. While it may take the Milwaukee County DA a while to figure that out, it doesn't take a genius to recognize the fraudulent intent and activity that occurred here. How can you even deny this? And again, where did the standard come from that one must prove the existence of such fraud instead of the mere possibility of such to justify the legitimate state interest in Act 23? In fact, no such authority exists and Flanagan was just using his own subjective standards in place of any real legal authority in such regards. Textbook activism.
That's not true at all. The Plaintiffs' merely have to display a showing of potential success on the merits - that's a far cry from the standard of a de facto showing of unconstitutionality, which represents a MUCH heavier burden! In all reality, I never demanded that Flanagan display any kind of hypocrisy - you just started applying differing legal standards / burden of proof in your erroneous assessment. But nice try on the argument.
Mary Lazich goes off the rails July 19, 2012 5:00 am • Cap Times editorial It is very rare, indeed, for a member of the state Legislature to accuse another legislator of circulating an "outright lie." But that's what state Sen. Mary Lazich, the New Berlin Republican who is one of the Legislature's bitterest partisans, did this week when -- as part of a dispute over voting rights -- she attacked state Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa, D-Milwaukee, with a press release headlined: "Sen. Lazich: Responds to Rep. Zamarripa's outright lie." In fact, it is Lazich who is being deceptive. Indeed, Lazich's behavior is as shameful as it is shameless. Zamarripa, who ably represents a Milwaukee district with a large Hispanic population, raised concerns about Lazich's crude fear-mongering with regard to supposed "illegal" voting by immigrants. Wisconsin has no serious problem with "illegal" voting. Republican prosecutors have confirmed that fact again and again. Yet some politicians are determined to try to stir fear, division and hatred by casting aspersions on minority voters... http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/article_fb42000c-d129-11e1-a7da-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz21CEw2HtF
Another off-topic lemming regurgitation I see! According to the opinion piece that you linked to, Lazich requested that the GAB "cross check Wisconsin’s voter registration rolls with a federal listing of noncitizen resident aliens known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database." This appears logical because noncitizens do not have the right to vote and shouldn't be voting in our elections. Rep. Zamarripa responded by claiming "that Lazich's real motivation might be to "purge lawful immigrant voters from Wisconsin poll lists.”" Without any proof to back up such an assertion, Zamarripa's statement appears to be little more than a highly divisive and unfounded conspiracy theory. Lazich responded to such nonsensical accusation by saying "“[w]hether it’s ignorance or intentional misrepresentation, Representative Zamarripa’s comment is absurd," and she's absolutely right. So, exactly where is the 'outright lie' from Lazich exactly? The only person that appears to have told a lie in this controversy is Rep. Zamarripa. Why hasn't Zamarripa provided evidence of her accusation against Lazich if she's telling the truth? Blind accusations and divisive spin just proves that your side was never serious about wanting to work together! Maybe you should change your screen name to liberal moron!
Despite the fact that even the feds now confirm that, at least until May of 2012, Wisconsin has had a net job gain. Now Miller is trying to spin it as a "continuing job loss". So it makes me wonder......how serious is the Democratic leadership about job creation, or is this just another joke to them!
It's obvious that the Dems were never serious about wanting to work together. Their continued use of divisive rhetoric spun propaganda is proof positive of their true agenda and intent.
It would have been nice if Lazich had had a conversation with Zamarripa before she went straight to GAB and then release a Press release. Working together means talking things out rather ran running to the press at the first chance she gets.
What's there to talk about in assuring that the voter rolls are accurate? Why would Zamarripa object to a cross check of our voter rolls and a federal database? There was no reason to discuss this before doing it, because keeping non-citizens off the rolls is common sensical and an issue that I thought was non-partisan. Lazich did not issue a press release after sending the letter to the GAB. Zamarripa was the one who ran to the press after learning about Lazich's letter, trying to make an issue out of nothing. Zamarripa was clearly trying to score political points. Lazich simply responded in kind via the press. What's you intended goal by perpetuating such trash? Do you hope that people won't read, investigate, and learn the real truth? Don't you find it at all unethical to be pandering to the low information non-thinking types with this clearly deceptive garbage? BTW - If Zamarripa doesn't have any proof to back up her allegations against Lazich, where's her public apology? Says a lot about Zamarripa's character and integrity, doesn't it?
Lazich did do a press release. Check the Wheeler report.
Not that it really matters, or changes anything substantively, but you're right - Hoffa typed that comment up in haste. That sentence should have read: "While Lazich did issue a press release after sending the letter to the GAB, Zamarripa was the one who used the press to launch a personal and highly partisan political attack against Lazich." On a side note, I noticed that Lazich's letters are printed on recycled paper. Zamarripa's letters make no mention of the paper it's printed on. I thought that you lefties were big environmentalists, so what gives?
Both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions hold the right to vote as the fundamental basis of our government. Since the highest court in the Country has ruled a SIMILIAR law constitutional, I find it hard to believe that the state Supreme Court would find a different conclusion based on the same concept. However, to Geoff's point, yes the state Supreme Court has the ability to rule other wise, though will doubtlessly uphold it.
Coffee Bean @CoffeeBean26 PA GOP admits no cases of voter fraud have been found http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/23/pennsylvania-gopers-concede-that-voter-fraud-claims-are-a-myth/ #VoterID #votersupression #ctl #p2 #Topprog #WIunion ...Given that voter fraud is a myth, why have Republicans been pushing voter ID laws so heavily? Because, as Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai said a few weeks ago, the voter ID law is “going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” While we think President Obama will still win Pennsylvania, Rep. Turzai is correct that these voter ID laws are about helping to elect Republicans. The voter ID laws seek to achieve this partisan goal by establishing hurdles that will disproportionately impact people of color, poor people, the elderly, and college students. People who lack a photo ID (such as a drivers’ license) typically need to present either a birth certificate or a passport, plus two forms of proof of residency (such as a utility bill, lease, etc.), and then make at least one trip to the DMV, where they will likely have to wait in line for at least a few hours in order to get a photo ID. The evidence that these requirements will disproportionately impact people of color, the elderly, poor people, and college students is strong. For example:..
You are one that mentioned working together. But it is difficult to work together when Lazich goes behind Zamarripa's back and goes to GAB with a request to check the voting lists in his district. If she wanted to check voting lists, she could has started in her own district. And as I said, she should have been professional about it and discussed it first. But, given her history of yelling voter fraud at every chance she can get (and that applies to other WI TeaGOP like Vos and Grothmann), in retrospect, what she did is not unexpected.