Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with the judge to decide as we are a nation of laws, not men.
Then you would disagree with the judge. This same argument was already presented to SCOTUS in Crawford v. Marion County. SCOTUS ruled that getting a voter ID was not too burdensome to protect the voting process from fraud. This judge decided to overrule case law. You being someone who believes we're a nation of laws must disagree with this judge's ruling then.
Then you would disagree with the judge. This same argument was already presented to SCOTUS in Crawford v. Marion County. SCOTUS ruled that getting a voter ID was not too burdensome to protect the voting process from fraud. This judge decided to overrule case law. You being someone who believes we're a nation of laws must disagree with this judge's ruling then.
Unless this law was copied, word for word, 100%, no I would not disagree with today's ruling. Only a carbon copy would allow anyone to say "Ditto a DIFFERENT law".
Unless this law was copied, word for word, 100%, no I would not disagree with today's ruling. Only a carbon copy would allow anyone to say "Ditto a DIFFERENT law".
You tell me. Based on the judge's rationale for striking down the law, it seems to be in direct opposition to case law established by SCOTUS. So does Wisconsin allow free IDs and does it allow provisional ballots? If so, this decision is not supported by case law. If not, then there's an argument to be made.
"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
You tell me. Based on the judge's rationale for striking down the law, it seems to be in direct opposition to case law established by SCOTUS. So does Wisconsin allow free IDs and does it allow provisional ballots? If so, this decision is not supported by case law. If not, then there's an argument to be made.
Even the US Supreme Court over-rules previous US Supreme Court decisions, did you know that?
With the passage of time, laws are reconsidered and sometimes ruled unconstitutional even when previously ruled as constitutional. The most famous case was probably Plessy v. Ferguson.
In more recent times Lawrence v. Texas trumped a former ruling.
Really? That's your argument? Do some research on what case law means and get back to me. You're argument is weak - incredibly weak.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law
