April 30, 2014

“Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law”

Just as a federal judge in Arkansas did recently, as well — even though the “indigent” the justice seemed so concerned who are allowed to cast provisional ballots would be able to obtain IDs for free, and in fact, are required to have ID to sign on to assistance programs, or cash checks, etc.

In the Wisconsin law, the ruling is even more absurd, claiming as it does that “low-income and minority voters aren’t as likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them,” and so “the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.”  That there is no evidence to support this supposition, and even were there, states have agreed to provide free ID cards to citizens looking to retain the franchise, doesn’t seem to matter; rather, these are political decisions intended to keep voter ID laws bound up in court through another election cycle.

What is so troublesome about the dismissal of voter ID laws is how obviously important — and indeed constitutional — they are.  Rejection of these laws often speaks to the classic catch-22 that in upholding Indiana’s voter ID law in 2007, liberal Justice Richard Posner pointed out in his opinion (a clear example of reasoned political thinking affirmed by the Supreme Court that he has since recanted, identifying him as a political ideologue worried more about his legacy from fellow travelers than with the rigor of his jurisprudence) is being required of states:  namely, the claim that no voter impersonation can be proven (which is the claim of many opponents, who in a surreal turn have no proof that voter suppression is occurring) in the absence of some method to track voter impersonation, is reason enough to allow for voter identification laws, and that of course states have the right to maintain the integrity of their voter rolls.  That is to say, the argument made by anti-voter ID proponents — that there is no evidence of voter fraud — only holds up should one refuse to allow for any mechanism by which to track voter fraud, which seems to be the Democrats’ position:  they are pro-voter fraud, though they wrap up this cynical position in phony arguments about civil rights and voter suppression, none of which can be proven in cases where there ARE voter ID cards required.

None of which sways partisan federal judges, who don’t require evidence of suppression to rule that votes are being suppressed, and yet require evidence of fraud from those who aren’t permitted to gather such evidence in the first place.

In a constitutional republic, the security of the franchise must necessarily hold sway over the position that someone somewhere is somehow unable to obtain a free ID card in order to vote.  There is ample evidence of dual state registration, dead people casting ballots, etc., to argue for the dilution of the franchise and so the taking away of civil rights by those in the pro-voter fraud movement:  because each ballot cast fraudulently either negates (or in the case of Democrats, augments) the franchise of a US citizen.

Governors in states that have passed voter ID laws should — and yes, I mean this and would support it 100% — declare the federal judiciary’s rulings obscene and maintain the laws the citizens of the state voted into place in lieu of any further appeals.

It’s time for states to say no to judicial oligarchy, especially when to defer to it is to negate the will of those they represent and to agree to federal insistence that states have no right to employ mechanisms by which to protect the franchise of its citizens.

Let some federal judge then rule that ALL of the affected states votes are thereby nullified as a result of that state’s refusal to surrender its sovereignty to some activist hack.  See how well that goes over as a matter of constitutional law.

One more cycle of progressive rule and we’re done.  Now is the time to stand up and so no, particularly as I’m almost certain elections are being swayed not just by Evan Thomas’s infamous 15-point media swing, but by voter fraud, be it multiple votes in multiple jurisdictions, or votes being cast by illegals or some proxy for those who have long since shuffled off this mortal coil — and in so doing, invariably turned Democrat in the afterlife.

(h/t Geoff B)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:15pm
25 comments | Trackback

Comments (25)

  1. How many times do these judges have to be smacked down before they give up?

  2. Ironic you need picture id to step foot in a Federal Courthouse.

  3. I wonder which side would get the biggest shock if every person who was eligible to vote actually voted?

    My cynical side says we would be in big trouble from a liberty point of view, however, that would open me up to supporting obstacles to voting.

  4. You have aright to vote and a right not to vote.

    Not getting an ID seems to me to be voluntarily giving up the right to vote for one particular election. It is no different than refusing to leave the house in order to vote. You are not denied for all time from voting if you skip or miss one election.

  5. I have a question…

    How do they argue that it would be the poor and minorities that would be suppressed by the right to require IDs? I mean, how do they know that they are poor and/or minorities?

    They would have to have some record of them before they were suppressed from voting, right? How did they manage to identify them as poor without some proof of identity and citizenship status? How did they manage to determine their ethnicity category?

    The obvious answer would be “through filling out government forms in order to obtain one benefit or another granted only to poor and/or minorities” (which require photo ID, not to mention proof of income, utility bills, rental lease, et alia, and ANY of which would be accepted as ID under HAVA standards).

    So these people they claim are being oppressed are, by definition, already in possession of sufficient identification to allow them to vote, right?

    Right?

  6. The obvious answer would be “through filling out government forms in order to obtain one benefit or another granted only to poor and/or minorities” (which require photo ID, not to mention proof of income, utility bills, rental lease, et alia, and ANY of which would be accepted as ID under HAVA standards).

    We’re assuming that the bureaucratic drones administering these programs actually check for ID as required. I’m pretty sure “I musta left my license at home” has never been a dealbreaker for any of these rubber-stamp operators, any more than it would be for an ACORN voter-drummer-upper.

  7. I had to show ID when I checked in to get this tick-bite rash looked at. Don’t people keep insisting health care is a right?

  8. Another question is the one of standing…

    In most cases, someone has to actually show that they have suffered harm from the act or actor being sued before being allowed to bring suit in ANY court, never mind the Federal ones, not so? Who is it that is claiming that they have been refused a chance to vote for lack of ID?

    Let’s see an actual claimant, not just some namby-pamby, feel-good-but-do-evil group claiming to stand for the rights of someone else. Then let’s see how he/she managed to actually get into the courthouse.

  9. One more cycle of progressive rule and we’re done.

    Given how the GOP seems content to conserve the gains of past progressive adminisitratios, we’re done anyway.

  10. - Carneys answer to the latest Benghazi info: “…..These are not the droide you are looking for….”

    - Note that as his nose grows out the press room door, through the ante room past the presidential podium on the WH patio, through the rose garden and out the fence onto Pennsyvania avenue various factions of the Lefturd media are watching each other like hawks for fear of being scooped if one of them decides to do a full 180 on Bumblefuck. They are also starting to realize this scandal is not going away.

  11. val gal and david the proggtard have a problem

  12. but they do control seebs news

  13. Pingback: The Camp Of The Saints

  14. Drum,
    “I mean, how do they know that they are poor and/or minorities?”

    They are what the shit-stirrers say they are.

    BTW this is old hat: throughout the ‘oughts’ it was fashionable to invoke the “Arab Street” whenever American Libs wanted to deny legitimacy to American efforts at reforming the Middle East after 9/11.

    And now, with the voter-fraudsters use of “poor and/or minorities” today, it’s the simply the same people using different “victims” again. But this time they are trying to undermine the integrity of America’s elections. Sheesh.

    We’ve got all the evidence we need to tie America’s wrecking-ball racialists to radical Islam: they share goals, defenses, headquarters and personnel. So, why’s it taking so long to pin the Islamo-tail on the Democrat’s’ Ass?

  15. - By a week or two after Benghazi even most of the Libturds were tacitly admitting the Rice lies were orchastrated by the WH, as shown by the Hildebitch finally blurting out “what difference does it make”, alluding one assumes that whatever massive Bumblefuck malaprops of foreign policy resulted in 4 dead Americans, the truth would not bring them back.

    - The real question is “why”. What the hell was so damn important to hide from the public and the world.

  16. >The real question is “why”.<

    arms sales by shady baracky backers – see fast and furious

  17. Why indeed? Why were we even in Libya screwing around in the middle of their civil war? Why wasn’t the compound guarded? Why are they lying to us?

  18. - The real question is “why”. What the hell was so damn important to hide from the public and the world.

    The SCOAMF in the White House.

    Of course, the only ones who couldn’t see the SCOAMF in the White House were the American electorate.

  19. Interesting, but when Rancho Cucamonga placed 1000 homes under mandatory evacuation today for the Etiwanda fire, residents going in to pick up their pets/photos/etc, had to show id to be allowed into the area.

    This is because looters like to take advantage …

    but I guess we all know that “voting” NEVER attracts fraud. Evah.

  20. if I voted I wouldn’t mind at all if I had to show an id

    it’s right here in my wallet cause they ask for it a lot when i use a credit card

  21. Election Day is close to Christmas.

    Cheating Commiecrats, Cheating Commiecrats.
    Right down Commiecrat Lane.

  22. The fact that the radioactive rodent does not vote just warms me all over. It means that he/she/it just talks a lot and, other than the slight chance he/she/it will infect someone with his/hers/its wisdom, we needn’t worry about the positions he/she/it espouses.
    So, ‘feets, bring on the baby-talk!

  23. Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » Why do Liberals think Blacks are Stupid?

Leave a Reply