A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[dellinger63]

Glad Molly had a responsible owner that came foward.

Big question is how many other Molly's are out there?

http://gazettextra.com/news/2012/mar...-deceased-dog/

filling out the registration form, even in part is fraud or intended fraud IMO.

Only an ID matching the name would prevent other not so honest Molly owner's from voting.

And now you know the rest of the story

[Riot]

Hardly any "Mollies" out there at all, according to reality.

I mean, other than the Republican Party altering vote counts during this primary season - geesh, it's not even being covered up any more!

Face it: the ALEC - Republican voting disinfranchisement laws are trying to be passed only to decrease the number of voters that usually tend to vote Democratic.

Same reason Congressional Republicans defunded ACORN based upon lies and altered videotape from James O'Keefe, Breitbart's hire.

STUDY: Feds Prosecuted Only 38 Cases Of Voter Fraud Between 2002-05, 14 Were Thrown Out
By ThinkProgress on May 16, 2007 at 9:52 am

In today’s Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson highlights a little-noted study on the politics of voting fraud published in March by Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Columbia University, for a group called Project Vote. The study “makes unmistakably clear” that “the government’s failure to prosecute or convict more than a handful of people for voter fraud isn’t for lack of trying.”

Since 2002, the Justice Department’s Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative has, as Gonzales put it, “made enforcement of election fraud and corruption offenses a top priority.” And yet between October 2002 and September 2005, just 38 cases were brought nationally, and of those, 14 ended in dismissals or acquittals, 11 in guilty pleas, and 13 in convictions.

Though a Justice Department manual on election crime states that these cases “may present an easier means of obtaining convictions than do other forms of public corruption,” federal attorneys have failed to rack up those convictions, for the simple reason that incidents of fraud have been few and far between.

As the Republican Myth has it, nothing is more fraught with fraud than voter-registration campaigns waged in working-class and poor neighborhoods that are largely black or Hispanic. According to the 2004 Census, 15 percent of blacks and Hispanics were registered during such campaigns; the figure for whites is just 9 percent. But of those 38 prosecutions that the Justice Department brought between 2002 and 2005, a grand total of two were for fabricating or falsifying voter registration applications. This qualifies as one of our smaller crime waves.

Here’s a chart from the study:
votefraud1.gif

Given these figures, the Justice Department’s intense focus on voter fraud is hard to explain. Yet, as Meyerson notes, from Karl Rove’s perspective, “a crackdown on voter registration campaigns in minority communities made cold electoral sense.” In close races, a key plank of his strategy “was to suppress black and Hispanic turnout — a task that would become far easier if the airwaves were buzzing with news of voter-fraud indictments. It was a task that required federal prosecutors who would indict first and ask questions later.”

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hardly any "Mollies" out there at all, according to reality.

You wouldn't know reality if it clubbed you in the face!

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You wouldn't know reality if it clubbed you in the face!

That's mean!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by bigrun

That's mean!!

Naw. It's ignorant, childish and stupid. Like Limbaugh Dell won't or can't address the actual numbered incidences of voter fraud, so he has to call names instead.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Naw. It's ignorant, childish and stupid. Like Limbaugh Dell won't or can't address the actual numbered incidences of voter fraud, so he has to call names instead.

One is too many cases! I addressed an incident; you post 38 prosecutions, most thrown out, call me Limbaugh and in one of your patented distorted breaks from reality accuse me of calling you a name?

Why is it that Democrats have a problem showing ID?

Is it related to wanting everything for free, no questions asked?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

One is too many cases! I addressed an incident; you post 38 prosecutions, most thrown out, call me Limbaugh and in one of your patented distorted breaks from reality accuse me of calling you a name?

Why is it that Democrats have a problem showing ID?

Is it related to wanting everything for free, no questions asked?

Nearly all of the few cases of voter fraud in this country are not correctable by showing a photo ID (most cases are done by election officials).

It's a lie that there is "massive voter fraud" and we "need" voter ID. For 34 REPUBLICAN states to suddenly think that's needed before the 2012 election? When there is virtually zero history of ID-correctable fraud in this country?

Wake up and smell the Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Republican Party attempting to take back power. For goodness sakes, Dell, they have SAID that is the reason they are pushing voter ID for 2012.

Nobody has a problem with "showing ID". It's the methods. Like requiring voter ID, then closing down DMV offices where it's obtained in poor neighborhoods of northern Wisconsin - so elderly and poor would have to drive 60 plus miles to obtain it.

Like Texas making photo student ID's (young students tend to vote Democratic) not good enough, but photo gun registration cards (tend to vote Republican) okay.

If you pretend to be libertarian, concern about people disinfranchising up to 5 million voters in the next election should really worry you.

It is estimated that 1 in 5 black/brown people do not drive, or have the necessary photo ID. As opposed to 1 in 10 white people. THAT is the point of this. The Republican Party knows which way the demographics are trending over the next 20 years, and whites will be the minority quickly.

The Justice Department is all over this, as is their responsibility defending the rights of US citizens, and implementation of restrictive laws have frozen many of these states.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

One is too many cases! I addressed an incident; you post 38 prosecutions, most thrown out, call me Limbaugh and in one of your patented distorted breaks from reality accuse me of calling you a name?

Why is it that Democrats have a problem showing ID?

Is it related to wanting everything for free, no questions asked?

no, doesn't have to do with free. democrats don't want id to be shown because it would be their segment of supporters that might be affected.

so, if there was a poll to show it would affect traditionally republican voters, dems would want it yesterday. you know, not because it's the right thing to do. or that it's logical. it all has to do with how it would affect elections.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, doesn't have to do with free. democrats don't want id to be shown because it would be their segment of supporters that might be affected.

That is precisely correct. Voter ID laws that target restriction of voting rights to one specific segment of the population are illegal.

That's why North or South (I can't remember) Carolina's voting law changes were immediately halted by the Justice Department. Clearly restrictive against a particular segment of the population: black voters.

[Riot]

Breaking this afternoon. Good news: 220,000 or more current voters will not be wrongly disinfranchised and wrongly prevented from voting in the next election.

Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan issued an injunction today temporarily barring the implementation of Wisconsin's new Voter ID law. The injunction means the new rules will not be in effect for the April 3rd presidential primary and local elections.

The ruling (pdf) indicates that the judge relied heavily on testimony from UW professor Kenneth Mayer, a respected expert on election laws who is firmly non-partisan. Mayer estimated that at least 220,000 otherwise eligible Wisconsin voters lack an approved form of identification stipulated by the law.

The first thing that struck me about the ruling was the reminder that in order to receive a temporary injunction, the parties must be able to show that they are likely to win the permanent injunction. The temporary injunction is proof that the judge expects the plaintiffs to prevail.

You can read the original ruling PDF via link here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...aw?via=siderec

[Riot]

From WisStateJournal:

A Dane County judge on Tuesday barred the enforcement of the state photo ID law at polling places during the general election on April 3, calling it an "extremely broad and largely needless" impairment of the right to vote.

Circuit Judge David Flanagan said the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera had demonstrated that their lawsuit against Gov. Scott Walker and the state Government Accountability Board would probably succeed on its merits and had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm if the photo ID law is allowed to stand. (Read the injunction here)

Flanagan granted a temporary injunction ordering Walker and the GAB to "cease immediately any effort to enforce or implement the photo identification requirements" of the law, pending a trial on a permanent injunction scheduled before him on April 16.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...#ixzz1oO4iAYJN

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

From WisStateJournal:

A Dane County judge on Tuesday barred the enforcement of the state photo ID law at polling places during the general election on April 3, calling it an "extremely broad and largely needless" impairment of the right to vote.

Circuit Judge David Flanagan said the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera had demonstrated that their lawsuit against Gov. Scott Walker and the state Government Accountability Board would probably succeed on its merits and had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm if the photo ID law is allowed to stand. (Read the injunction here)

Flanagan granted a temporary injunction ordering Walker and the GAB to "cease immediately any effort to enforce or implement the photo identification requirements" of the law, pending a trial on a permanent injunction scheduled before him on April 16.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...#ixzz1oO4iAYJN

Did you forget to mention that the so called impartial judge that granted this injuction signed a recall petition against walker. So much for being impartial. But why report all the facts but just for your info


Records show Flanagan signed the Walker recall petition on Nov. 15. The petition lists Flanagan's wife, Maureen McGlynn Flanagan, as the one who circulated the petitiion.

Contacted Tuesday, McGlynn Flanagan - a former assistant attorney general - confirmed that she had gathered signatures in hopes of recalling the first-term Republican governor. She also confirmed that her husband had signed one of the petitions that she circulated.

The Journal Sentinel left a message with Flanagan's chambers asking whether he had signed a recall petition. His clerk called back to say Flanagan would only answer questions submitted in writing at the courthouse.

State Republican Party spokesman Ben Sparks said his party will be filing a complaint with the state Judicial Commission asking it to investigate why Flanagan did not recuse himself.

"The very fact that Dane County Judge David Flanagan signed a petition to recall Governor Walker calls today's court proceedings regarding Wisconsin's voter ID law into question," Sparks said in a statement. "To make matters more troubling, Judge Flanagan also lists Melisa Mulliken, a longtime adviser to Kathleen Falk, as his campaign manager on his offical campaign web page."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Did you forget to mention that the so called impartial judge that granted this injuction signed a recall petition against walker. So much for being impartial. But why report all the facts but just for your info

So? You say the judge cannot follow the law and enjoy his legal rights as a citizen? And do something that is not disqualifying from the case under our legal system?

And instead of making this a personal attack against me, and accusing me falsely of withholding information (which is absurd, as all I did was quote two news stories) why don't you just post the info you want added to the discussion? Why do you angry zealots always have to make things personal attacks? Your anger and hate and personalization of opposition into personalized hate for "the opposite side" is the problem with everything wrong in this country's government right now.

Wow, you guys really have zero respect for the law, don't you?

Please, go ahead and show how that affected the rule of law. Do you not realize the trial is April 16?

Let me get some popcorn while the Walkerites and their acolytes twist themselves into pretzels in an effort to decry "judicial activism" and institute personal smears, with their massively hypocritical history of Judge Prosser

Actually, the utter disrespect shown for the law in Wisconsin isn't funny at all. It's pathetic and sad. Face it: the voter ID law is under injunction -meaning it cannot be used in the April election - until the trial.

I have to go check Intrade, see the current odds on "recall vs perp walk" happening first for Scott Walker.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

So? You say the judge cannot follow the law and enjoy his legal rights as a citizen? And do something that is not disqualifying from the case under our legal system?

Wow, you guys really have zero respect for the law, don't you?

Please, go ahead and show how that affected the rule of law. Do you not realize the trial is April 16?

Let me get some popcorn while the Walkerites and their acolytes twist themselves into pretzels in an effort to decry "judicial activism" and institute personal smears, with their massively hypocritical history of Judge Prosser

Actually, the utter disrespect shown for the law in Wisconsin isn't funny at all. It's pathetic and sad. Face it: the voter ID law is under injunction -meaning it cannot be used in the April election - until the trial.

I have to go check Intrade, see the current odds on "recall vs perp walk" happening first for Scott Walker.

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision? Did you miss the fact that his campaign manager is a long time advisor to Kathleen Falk? If it is strictly as black and white as you say it is why did this specific judge do the injunction? and why not one who didn't have a specific obvious political agenda?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision?

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way? Sorry, no: judges do not give up their private rights as citizens when they become judges.

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th. But it's pretty apparent from the injunction decision that the law appears to be readily overturnable on broad, basic legal issues. Which has zero to do with a judges allegedly private, legal voting record.

The injunction lists the multiple legal reasons the judge feels the case will not proceed on it's merits April 16th. It is a roadmap to the opposition about what the judge will rule based upon the law.

Apparently, those in favor of the law can't come up with any legal responses to that, and are left with trying to disqualify the judge. So, get another judge. Have the case delayed even longer. The same decision will most likely be rendered. This isn't rocket science, or complicated. It's voting law, it's very clear and simple. The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disinfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.

Attacking the judge and attempting to get a different judge is certainly a valid lawyer tactic, but it's rather indicative that those wanting the law implemented have zero legal argument to support the law.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way?

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th.

Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election? No he signed a recall petition trying to overturn the decision of a prior election. What about his obvious ties to the chosen one of the unions Kathleen Falk?

[wiphan]

The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disenfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.



It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license. What was not estimated was how many people of those 220,000 are actually registered to vote or how many of those people didn't have the ability to find a way to get a state issued ID (since the government is willing to pay for the IDs for those who can't afford it). The constitution says that you have the right to vote, but it also states the right to bear arms. Try getting a gun without a ID.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election?

So you are maintaining the judge is not a fair and impartial judge, but is strictly political. And that judges cannot be fair and impartial due to their personal political leanings?

Wow - guess the Founding Fathers blew that one!

Can you demonstrate how that is so? Is that based upon his previous performance as a judge? Or how you act?

The trial is April 16th. The legal team can come up with arguments against what the judge has outlined in his reasoning for the injunction. Or, they can try for a different judge.

I wonder why they didn't ask for a different judge immediately, when his name was announced to hear the case? No reason?

It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license.

Well, no. It was expert testimony that currently over 220,000 people do not currently meet the new law voting requirements, and the important part is that disinfranchised group was overwhelmingly not representative of the voting public at large. They are specific individual different groups. That makes the law discriminatory.

What was not estimated was how many people of those 220,000 are actually registered to vote or how many of those people didn't have the ability to find a way to get a state issued ID (since the government is willing to pay for the IDs for those who can't afford it).

???? What does that have to do with the expert testimony that the law discriminates against specific groups? That is the illegal part!

Potential disinfranchisees are not required, by law, to attempt to fulfill the law, as proof that the law is discriminatory. That's absurd <g> You are saying that the victims of the discrimination have no choice.

[nebrady]

Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case. He signed the recall the first day and is clearly bias to walker. Another attorney in the article said the judge should have excused himself. You tell me if that isn't being bias. What is really sad, is showing an id is not a bad thing. Every person does it everyday. I've worked at a bar, and no matter what your age you have to show a picture id to get in the bar! Its not that big of a deal and it is the right thing! I can't wait til the recall vote and walker wins by a landslide! Then all you train lovers can shut up!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by nebrady

Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case.

Really? The judge has issued a detailed legal preliminary injunction for all to see. What part of that legal detail is so out of expected for a judicial ruling, in keeping with current, detailed Wisconsin Voting Law, that makes one think the judge ruled weirdly?

And further, that the demonstrable non-adherence to Wisconsin Voting Law was based upon bias?

What ridiculous, non-reality based accusations.

This isn't a effing joke. These are serious accusations against a judge, his life, his work.

The laughable thing is that, for people to make those accusations, reveals that that is the way they, themselves, would probably act.

The trial is April 16th. A recusal may be asked for at that time.