Supreme Court Lets Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stand

Richard Wolf, USA Today, March 23, 2015

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a major challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law, delivering a victory to Republicans who favor tougher election laws.

The decision is a setback for civil rights groups that contend the law could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of residents who lack proper ID–particularly racial minorities, seniors, students and people with disabilities.

It turns both sides’ sights on Texas, where a similar statute is pending before a federal appeals court. Eventually, the justices are likely to resolve the festering issue.

For now, it appears a majority of high court justices approve of photo-ID laws such as Wisconsin’s, which does not involve allegations of intentional racial discrimination. None of the high court’s more liberal justices voiced dissent with the decision not to hear the case.

{snip}

The Supreme Court blocked the law from taking effect in November to avoid confusion among voters. Before an election featuring judicial and local races slated for April 7, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency motion Monday to block the photo ID requirement, and the state agreed to do so.

Thereafter, the justices’ refusal to hear objections to the law means that Wisconsin will become the eighth state with a strict photo identification law that allows no exceptions to a government-issued ID. The others are Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • You can never be for sure, but I sorta take this as a good omen for that disparate impact case out of Texas that they’re hearing this term.

    • Kenner

      What do you think of today’s ruling against racially gerrymandered voting districts? I’ve thought the plus side of that policy was seeing more and more non-white Democrats as the face of their party.

      • First off, I didn’t know there was one, I’ll look for the news.

        But really, a pair of political scientists did a study two years ago, the NYT had news of it last year, and the results were that gerrymandering is pretty much a non-issue; the Democrats’ problem in terms of Congress is that their voters are clumped up in small areas.

        Also, the two party national Congressional popular vote was virtually the same in 2010 as it was in 2014. The 2010 results were fed into the 2000s map, (redistricting was not until 2011), and the 2014 results were fed into this decade’s map. 242 Republicans in 2010, 247 in 2014, which means all this great gerrymandering only helps Republicans by 5 out of 435.

        Really, “gerrymandering” is just another crackpot leftist meme, a crutch they can lean on in order to keep from having to blame themselves. See also: White privilege, white supremacy, cishet, Koch Brothers.

        • Racial gerrymandering helps and harms both parties by ensuring solid-majority voting districts for each. I haven’t seen any scientific studies of the matter, but gut instinct suggests that the net effect is probably zero.

          • The study took the 2012 Congressional results (slightly more D than R in generic voting, 233-201 R in the final count) and crossed it into thousands of potential districting maps, ranging from the obvious pro-Democrat gerrymanders to obvious pro-Republican gerrymanders to everything in between. It found that there only a tiny handful of wildly pro-Democrat maps which would have generated a Democrat majority, and that the existing map for this decade is a moderately pro-Republican map but not a wildly pro-Republican one. 2012 is what got the crackpot left all energized on this gerrymandering meme, though they helped cause it to begin with. But they’re doing so irrationally (of course, much of what they say and do is irrational), because we have the political science to back it up. Because science, must not be a denier.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Except when it’s on an epic scale with respect to turning loose tens of millions of “greaseritos” (Michael Christopher Scott).

      • Found it:

        http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/03/25/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-racial-redistricting/

        It’s not as profound as some would like to make it out to be. All it means is that the creation of strange gerrymanders to help blacks is not an implicit requirement of the Voting Rights Act. It does not mean that they can’t be created in the future, or that any existing ones will be wiped out. It does mean that if they aren’t created, the NAACP is going to find it all but impossible to win a VRA based lawsuit to have the courts to force them to be created.

      • WR_the_realist

        Here’s a link to the ruling:
        rt com/usa/244081-scotus-alabama-districts-racial-gerrymandering/

        It appears that the Supreme Court objected to the racial gerrymandering in Alabama only because it hurts blacks. The voting rights act actually requires racial gerrymandering to ensure that blacks get some black majority districts. So I guess states are required to have some racial gerrymandering but not too much.

    • stringtheoryrob

      Agreed. The Supreems rulings are often flaky at best, and subject to subternal lower court rulings at local levels. The same case could be made the other way I guess so who knows.

    • Earl P. Holt III

      The nigros seem VERY adept at finding out how to acquire SNAP, and Section 8, and TANF, and Medicaid — not to mention whack, smack, crack and weed — but claim they cannot get adequate I.D. for the purpose of voting.

      The truth is, these laws make it more difficult for them to get FRAUDULENT I.D. for the purpose of voting…

  • ” . . . tougher election laws . . . “

    Hardly.
    Voter I.D. is intellectually honest.

    • Even if voter fraud were a statistical non-issue, increased public trust in election outcomes is a useful enough outcome to make voter ID worthwhile.

      • Progressives think (and they might be right) that we are a bunch of suckers. I am waiting for them to declare, “No one is crossing the border illegally, so why guard it?”

        • stringtheoryrob

          A true White Nationalist would never use the word “progressive” in describing a Marxist. No offense brother, I just wish we use the same terms. Rock-On brother!

        • Earl P. Holt III

          Don’t give THEM any ideas…!!!

      • Usually Much Calmer

        And nudge people to take voting more seriously.

        • Hammerheart

          A democracy can only function in the long term when the people are knowledgeable about they’re voting on.

          In the words of the great negro philosopher negrodamus maximus latrina Trayvon the dog

          “We be fucked”

      • stringtheoryrob

        Voter ID is ‘racist’ in that it prevents “Vote early and vote often.”

      • Earl P. Holt III

        “Its not the magnitude of the evidence that counts, it’s the seriousness of the charge…” (Mantra parroted by feminists and other lying communists during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings…)

    • TruthBeTold

      Tougher to commit voter fraud.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Even the African Jesus agrees.
      .

    • Earl P. Holt III

      It’s what First World countries do, in contrast to the kinds of elections that Third World countries allow…

  • Brady

    End of the Second Reconstruction.

    That is to say, the weakening of the federal government’s grip over the states, just as its cloud is declining internationally.

    • Michael Whalen

      Repeal the 17th amendment!

      • connorhus

        Repeal everything above 14.

  • Since one needs a photo ID to obtain a library card, cash a check (such as from Social Security), open a bank account, use a credit card, get married, purchase a firearm, ammunition or liquor, operate a motor vehicle or rent anything at all, requiring one of voters is no “onerous” burden.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Getting off butt can be onerous and burdensome to some types.

      • John Smith

        Especially if you’re drunk or stoned almost all the time or weigh 800# after eating govt. cheese and the like all day while watching Jerry Springer.

    • LexiconD1

      In California, where I live…if you collect any welfare entitlements, it’s FREE. I’m so sick and tired of the whining of the left.

    • JackKrak

      yeah, but who has time for that when you have to stand in line for the new Air Jordans or section 8 vouchers?

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Once Obongo succeeds in overwhelming the founding population with turd worlders, he’ll be all for voter ID.

  • superlloyd

    Wow, anti corruption, common sense measures are slicing through the convoluted lies and machinations of the cultural marxist totalitarians.

  • connorhus

    OOPs I guess the Dead won’t get to vote either.

    • John Smith

      But the Mexicans using their SSNs to get IDs will….

      • Illegal aliens can’t get real Social Security numbers. They’re probably using yours and mine.

        • John Smith

          I thought Obongo’s amnesty will let them get them?

        • newscomments70

          I’ve had three episodes of attempted fraud happen to me in the last 12 months, so yes, they are using yours and mine. I started using credit cards when i was 16. I never had a problem until recently. Now I have to check my account activity, every day.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    The ACLU said it then filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to try to keep the law from taking effect immediately.

    One thing to always remember about Cultural Marxists and other lefties: They never, ever give up.

    I expect Holder’s DOJ will weigh in on this too and find a judge to file a “temporary” injunction – dragged out until after the 2016 elections.

  • African Innovation

    Suppoht yo brutha! Fite da racis’ votur eye dee laws. Dem crackas tryina tayk uz bak ta Jim Crowe eara discrimanachen an disinfranchizemint. Wuz necks? Slayvry?

  • Hilis Hatki

    Our Founding Fathers were right, it was a experiment.

  • Oldcorporal

    Has the Left ever explained just WHY it insists that “hundreds of thousands” of voters would be “disenfranchised” because they “lack proper ID”? How about them GETTING proper ID? It’s not like it costs a thousand dollars a person! I worked the polls here in Indiana for one of the parties for several years. In Indiana, if you do not have a driver’s license, which is perfectly acceptable to use for voter ID, then you can go to your county’s license branch, tell them that you want to get an Indiana ID card for the purpose of voting, and THEY CAN’T CHARGE YOU A PENNY FOR IT! The Left has made this a huge issue for one reason: Its voters are less likely to take the trouble — such as it is — to obtain proper ID; so it claims that requiring it will “disenfranchise” them. Bull crap!

    • John Smith

      You can’t drive, rent a vehicle, cash a check, open a bank account, etc. without one, yet we’re supposed to believe that it’s a major hardship for folks to get an ID? They could even offer them at a discount or free to the poorest persons if that’s what it took.

  • stedman holder

    Bossman is pulling his hair out, lol!

  • A Freespeechzone

    “The decision is a setback for civil rights groups that contend the law could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of residents who lack proper ID–particularly racial minorities, seniors, students and people with disabilities.”

    WHAT about Americans who play by the rules? Ignoring VoterID only encourages voter fraud and the disenfranchisement of MOST Americans.

    WE ALL know that liberals can’t win in the forum of ideas—they have to cheat, lie and commit voter fraud—and use minorities as the scapegoats.

  • Spikeygrrl

    As a person who is wheelchair-bound, I have no sympathy — zero, zilch, nada — for fellow disabled people who use their mobility issues as a half-[donkey] excuse not to obtain the legal ID for voting. There’s simply no excuse. If you can’t drive, take the bus or a cab. If where you live has no mass transit, ask a friend or neighbor for a ride. Or ask a church or civic organization (e.g., the VFW). And if all else fails, call the nearest campaign office of a candidate you support. Once you’re ID’d — and registered (same drill) — you can vote by mail.

    There is no excuse for not voting. NONE. Our national Founders fought, and were willing to die, for us to have that right/responsibility. If you do not vote, you have NO moral right to whine about that election’s results. We do indeed get the government we deserve.

    • I get around just fine and vote by mail anyway. It is simply more convenient than driving to the polls and waiting in line.

      • Spikeygrrl

        I’m so glad for you! My condition renders me completely numb in my feet and legs up to mid-thigh, and in my hands and arms to just below the elbow. It’s a rare form of progressive paralysis; when it reaches my torso, vital organs will shut down and kill me. There is as yet no cure.

        Since I get NO sensory feedback from either hands/arms OR feet/legs, there’s no way I can drive without endangering both other drivers and myself. And I’m nowhere near a bus line (hubby and I bought this house before the onset of my GBS). Since I’m pretty new to Texas, my first hurdle is getting to the DMV for a Texas State ID and change my voter registration while I’m there. Fun, fun, fun…but you betcha I’ll get it done before the primaries!

        • Lynn Munoz

          I am sorry…and do empathize. God bless you.

          • Spikeygrrl

            Thank you for your kind words.

    • John Smith

      I have a problem with the choices I get to vote on. It’s intentionally set up around here to make third parties have a hard time getting on the ballot, which is the only reason I voted Green Party, since they found a way on, unlike the Libertarians or Constitution Party.

      • Spikeygrrl

        Frustrating, isn’t it?

  • AndrewInterrupted

    The Kenyan warlord will have them legalized soon enough. The ink will still be wet on their voter ID cards when they go to use them.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    ACLU = The American Communist Lawyer’s Union.

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      Started by Jooss.

      • Earl P. Holt III

        …and communists. Then it changed its name to hide its Bolshevik history…

        • John Smith

          Not a whole lot of difference when you check both lists.

  • Light from the East

    Then we will wait for Obama abuse his power to deal with this. Remember his crazy remark about “mandatory voting”?

  • Dale McNamee

    I worked as an election judge in the past gubernatorial primary & general election, checking the poll book that listed everyone registered in the precinct to vote.

    Although Maryland doesn’t require photo ID, every voter had their driver’s license & voter registration cards ready… I quietly encouraged
    that behavior.

  • Anon Wyatt

    Milwaukee county: Home of the city of Milwaukee which has NOT had a Republican mayor ( I know, like it really matters) since 1908, and is one of the few major American cities to elect openly Socialist mayors. Frank Zeidler was a three term Socialist mayor of Milwaukee from 1948-1960, preceded by Socialists Emil Seidel and Daniel Hoan.

    Dane county: Where Madison, the San FranSicko of the Midwest, is located, is the capitol of WI and home of the University of Wisconsin. Also a recent host to the ‘White Privilege conference.’

    It’s a start and an advantage for the rest of the state, but the aforementioned counties will ALWAYS go ‘blue’ by hook or crook.

  • Realist

    Adding an IQ test would be a big improvement.
    For both nominees and electorate

  • AndrewInterrupted

    These headlines can be deceiving. New Hampshire enacted a similar law that came into effect by the 2014 midterms. Come to find out, poll workers may only “request ID”. They can’t prevent a dreamer from illegally voting if the greaserito is coached on the fine print. And they always are.

  • Hilis Hatki

    On a similar note, I just got back from jury selection. I wanted to be on the grand jury, they have alot of investigative power on all things in this county. Offices, books, jail, access to any thing government. You just have register to vote to be in the selection.

  • Epiminondas

    In the past year, Wisconsin has gone from a union state to a right-to-work state, and now they have adopted a voter ID law. Amazing.

  • Ringo Lennon

    50 years ago who would have thought we’d be overrun this badly by nonwhites?

  • FozzieT

    Scary that something as common-sense as Voter ID is left to our black-robed masters. What if a majority of them woke up in a bad mood yesterday and decided to hear the case, just because?

  • Anon Wyatt

    I know it’s late but I am a native Milwaukean and nothing I said came from the Shepard Express or the Ithmus. The majority of Madison that I’m familiar with are the anti-white, State Street types. Thank You for letting me know there are non San Fran-Sickos in Dane county. I may visit again…