Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes

[skinsmarydu]

I was going to post that same article. It's been quite the buzz around here...

Wow, a far right nut bag whining about separation of church and state. Now THAT'S rich! :-D

You know it! But if those souls were republican, he'd get 'em to the polls himself if need be, LOL

[twa]

Federal Appeals Court Permits Wisconsin Voter ID Law

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/us/voter-id-law-in-wisconsin-is-permitted-by-us-court.html

 

CHICAGO — A federal appeals court on Friday permitted Wisconsin to restore a requirement that voters provide photo identification before casting their ballots, allowing the long-debated state law to take effect in time for a hard-fought election on Nov. 4.

The order, which came surprisingly swiftly, on the same day that lawyers made their arguments before a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was seen as a significant victory for advocates of such voting requirements. Opponents of the laws had viewed the Wisconsin case as opening a novel legal basis for their efforts in federal courtrooms.

In their order, the panel of three judges described Wisconsin’s requirement as “materially identical” to a statute in Indiana, which was upheld in 2008 by the Supreme Court. The panel also noted that Wisconsin had introduced new procedures to make it easier to obtain photo identification cards, reducing concerns raised months ago by a federal court judge who had blocked Wisconsin’s law, saying that it disproportionately affected blacks and Latinos.

“This reduces the likelihood of irreparable injury, and it also changes the balance of equities and thus the propriety of federal injunctive relief,” the appeals panel, which stayed the earlier court’s injunction, said. The order was unsigned, but the panel included Frank H. Easterbrook, who was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan, and Diane S. Sykes and John Daniel Tinder, both of whom were nominated by President George W. Bush.

The order was not a final action on the issue, but the appeals panel said it had concluded that the probability was “sufficiently great” that Wisconsin officials, who had appealed efforts to block the photo requirement, would succeed in their case. A fuller opinion on the merits of the case is expected later, but efforts to prepare Wisconsin voters and poll workers for the photo requirement will take place immediately, state officials said.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/appeals-court-strikes-down-gop-plan-to-cut-early-voting-in-ohio/

 

 

Appeals court strikes down GOP plan to cut early voting in Ohio

 

 

A federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared the way for voters in Ohio to begin casting in-person ballots as early as Tuesday, 35 days before the November midterm election.

 

A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Peter Economus earlier this month that reinstated early in-person voting hours on multiple Sundays and weekday evenings.

 

The ruling came after an appeal by state attorneys seeking uniform voting hours for all 88 counties argued that the increased cost and chance of fraud outweighed the benefit of extended voting periods.

 

 

 

Ohio established the early-voting period in 2005 in response to some voters in urban areas waiting up to 12 hours to vote in the 2004 general election. The early-voting period was rolled back in February when a bill passed by a majority-Republican legislature cut early voting to 28 days from 35.

 

In a 46-page decision, the judges agreed with civil rights groups that cutting the early-voting hours would suppress turnout by minorities and the poor.

 

“The fact that a practice or law eliminates voting opportunities that used to exist under prior law that African Americans disproportionately used is therefore relevant to an assessment of whether, under the current system, African Americans have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process as compared to other voters,” the judges said.

 

[twa]

and SCOTUS says hold up Junior

 

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66036

 

Via SCOTUSBlog comes this Supreme Court order staying the district court’s order preventing various cutbacks in early voting (including a cutback from 35 to 28 days, and elimination of one of the two early voting days on a Sunday, a day African-American churches had been using for “Souls to the Polls” voter drives). [it is not clear from earlier orders which Sunday might be eliminated.]

Although the order is “temporary” in the sense that it will be in place pending a ruling on a cert. petition ultimately to be filed by Ohio in the Supreme Court, that won’t happen before this election, and so for this election the new shorter voting period is in effect—and not the old rules put back in place by the district court and affirmed by the 6th Circuit.

 

add

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/09/early-voting-in-ohio-blocked/

 

One of the arguments that Ohio officials have made, and made again to the Supreme Court, is that Ohio is out in front of most states in the number of early voting days it allows, and that should be sufficient.  The expansion of early voting in Ohio was adopted by the state legislature nine years ago in the wake of major problems of delay at the polls in the 2004 elections.

The case as it is now unfolding before the Supreme Court involves major constitutional issues, especially on how far the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of legal equality applies to early voting opportunities, and how courts are to apply Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   Section 2 has become newly important to challengers of voting restrictions since the Supreme Court last year struck down a key part of the 1965 Act, the part that triggers federal government veto power over changes in state election laws that may be racially discriminatory.

In a series of court battles in recent years, restrictions on early voting opportunities and requirements for voter IDs have emerged most prominently.

The Supreme Court may next face a case from Wisconsin focusing on the voter ID question.   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has allowed that ID requirement to be in effect for this year’s election.

[Larry]

Deleted post. 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/al_jazeera_america_s_reveals_massive_gop_voter_suppression_effort_millions.html

 

 

The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet

 

 

Let’s assume—despite what  most liberals suspect—that the most vocal voter ID boosters are sincere. That, as National Review’s Rich Lowry argues inPolitico, they want nothing more than to protect the vote from fraud with a minor imposition on the time and effort of prospective voters. “Where you come down on this issue,” he writes, “really depends on whether you think it’s reasonable to require the minimal effort to establish your identity by producing an ID at the ballot box or not.”

 

Fair enough. That’s a reasonable sentiment. Despite substantial evidence to the contrary, Republicans and other voter ID supporters don’t want to make it harder for more vulnerable voters to cast a ballot—although that’s the practical outcome of an ID requirement—they just want to secure the process and protect the integrity of the vote.

 

But this doesn’t explain the Republican-led push to end or limit same-day registration (condemned by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as a “trick”) and early and weekend voting, procedures used most by minorities, black Americans in particular. Nor does it explain an incredible effort just uncovered by Al Jazeera America that could shift the direction of the midterm elections.

 

 

[twa]

can we all agree the whole state should have the same rules? (voting day,hours ect?)

 

 

or is that asking too much

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

can we all agree the whole state should have the same rules? (voting day,hours ect?)

 

 

or is that asking too much

You'll get no argument from me in that regard.

[Larry]

can we all agree the whole state should have the same rules? (voting day,hours ect?)

 

 

or is that asking too much

It's a nice theory.

However, when "the same rules" were picked for the purpose of tilting the election towards one political Party, by suppressing minority votes? Then things become a lot less theoretical.

[Slateman]

It's a nice theory.

However, when "the same rules" were picked for the purpose of tilting the election towards one political Party, by suppressing minority votes? Then things become a lot less theoretical.

lol, now days and time of day are racist

[Larry]

lol, now days and time of day are racist

Actually, if you check my post, I don't think I said "racist" a single time.

I said they were trying to tilt the election in their favor, by suppressing the minority vote.

I did not speculate on whether their motives for doing this were racist, or simply a desire for political power. (Frankly, I would assume the latter, actually. The GOP would love for minorities to vote. If they voted Republican.)

 

[deejaydana]

The whole Voter ID hurdle, so seemingy insurmountable and malignant and evepresent in the minds of some liberals, is completely unsupported by any shred of factual data. They want open doors and a completely unregulated system because it's the only way they can get their folks into office this go round.

[Larry]

The whole Voter ID hurdle, so seemingy insurmountable and malignant and evepresent in the minds of some liberals, is completely unsupported by any shred of factual data. They want open doors and a completely unregulated system because it's the only way they can get their folks into office this go round.

Do you get a free t shirt if you spout enough of those slogans?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the lack of proof of the problem that these laws are supposedly needed, to fix?

[mistertim]

The whole Voter ID hurdle, so seemingy insurmountable and malignant and evepresent in the minds of some liberals, is completely unsupported by any shred of factual data. They want open doors and a completely unregulated system because it's the only way they can get their folks into office this go round.

Sounds sorta like the whole "voter fraud" thing.

[Slateman]

Actually, if you check my post, I don't think I said "racist" a single time.

I said they were trying to tilt the election in their favor, by suppressing the minority vote.

I did not speculate on whether their motives for doing this were racist, or simply a desire for political power. (Frankly, I would assume the latter, actually. The GOP would love for minorities to vote. If they voted Republican.)

 

Suppressing minority votes = racisim

 

I fail to see how days and times can be considered "suppressing minority votes."

[Larry]

I fail to see how days and times can be considered "suppressing minority votes."

And yet, every single Republican, and every single Democrat, knows full well that they do.

Which is why both of them vote exactly the way that they do, on the issue.

[Slateman]

And yet, every single Republican, and every single Democrat, knows full well that they do.

Which is why both of them vote exactly the way that they do, on the issue.

jlawohsure.gif

 

Election day should be a holiday. You should have one day to vote. Polls open at 5 am and close at midnight. Done and done.

[twa]

jlawohsure.gif

 

Election day should be a holiday. You should have one day to vote. Polls open at 5 am and close at midnight. Done and done.

 

I'm gonna be out of state....can I mail it in?

[Predicto]

The whole Voter ID hurdle, so seemingy insurmountable and malignant and evepresent in the minds of some liberals, is completely unsupported by any shred of factual data. They want open doors and a completely unregulated system because it's the only way they can get their folks into office this go round.

 

 

I like this.   The fact that not a word of it is correct makes it even more entertaining.  

 

It's purestrain Colbert truthiness of the finest kind.

I'm gonna be out of state....can I mail it in?

 

 

Are you military?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are?  Then no, you cant.  

[Larry]

I like this. The fact that not a word of it is correct makes it even more entertaining.

It's purestrain Colbert truthiness of the finest kind.

You got some support that shows that Voter ID laws actually DID suppress voting? I'd love to have some.

(I'd simply taken it at face value that the impact was there, but not big enough to be provable).

[Predicto]

You got some support that shows that Voter ID laws actually DID suppress voting? I'd love to have some.

(I'd simply taken it at face value that the impact was there, but not big enough to be provable).

 

 

Depends on what you consider provable.  

 

As discussed above, the Brennan Center at NYU did a huge study on voter fraud of this sort, by individuals sneaking in to vote, and essentially found that it doesn't happen.  

 

 http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

 

Studies indicated that nearly 11 percent of all eligible voters don't have photo IDs, mostly the poor, elderly, young and minorities. 

 

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf

 

 

Meanwhile, North Carolina's Secretary of State did a study and found that 138,425 people participated in the 2012 election who did not have a photo ID, in that one state alone.   None of those people would be permitted to vote under a strict voter ID law.   that's over 100,000 disenfranchised people in one medium sized state that has never had a single documented case of "fake voter walking into the polling place" voter fraud.  

 

http://www.democracy-nc.org/downloads/SBOE-DMVMatchMemoApril2013.pdf

 

 

That isn't going to be sufficient proof for deejaydana, of course.   

[Bang]

The whole Voter ID hurdle, so seemingy insurmountable and malignant and evepresent in the minds of some liberals, is completely unsupported by any shred of factual data. They want open doors and a completely unregulated system because it's the only way they can get their folks into office this go round.

 

You know what else is not supported by a shred of evidence or data?

Voter fraud.

 

It's been showed time and time and time again that it simply does not exist, and yet every cycle here's the protectors of our freedom screaming that it does, and that they just want to safeguard everybody against something that has not a bit of evidence to be happening.

 

Honestly,, if the GOP would spend half as much time on keeping us safe from other just-as-real problems,,  like the impending invasion from Saturn, or the fact that garbage cans made in Taiwan are killing people at an astounding rate, we could actually get someplace.

 

 

if you're going to pretend a problem exists that does not, then you can't go asking for any evidence to back up anyone's claims

.

when you deal in lies, misdirections, and hysteria, the only answer that should suffice is 

"If you don't settle down right NOW I will turn this car around and NOBODY is going to Gramma's."

 

When it comes to screeching children, it works remarkably well.

 

~Bang

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why weren't Republicans pushing this ten years ago, twenty years ago, etc..? This isn't at all about voter fraud, this is about attempting to help their own party regain the White House. Just ask the House Majority Leader in PA Mike Turzai: "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

 

Well, for what it's worth, the GOP has been carrying this flag for a long time.   10 years ago, they were supporting this agenda. 

[Predicto]

Well, for what it's worth, the GOP has been carrying this flag for a long time.   10 years ago, they were supporting this agenda. 

 

 

True.  It became an issue right about when Newt Gingrich showed up and turned the GOP from the "conservative and business friendly half of America party" into the "win at all cost scorched earth nothing is unfair as long as it hurts the Democrats" party. 

[Larry]

Depends on what you consider provable.

Those are all studies saying that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise people. I was asking if there was any kind of evidence that it had. Past tense.

 

(And I was aware of the first two.) 

Well, for what it's worth, the GOP has been carrying this flag for a long time.   10 years ago, they were supporting this agenda. 

 

Well, for what it's worth, the GOP has supported making it tougher for minorities to vote for more than 10 years.  At least 50.