Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

by Ben Reilly Thu May 01, 2014 5:59 am

A long and bitter Wisconsin trial ended Tuesday afternoon with a sweeping defeat for supporters of a voter-ID law designed to make it more difficult for citizens to cast ballots. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declared in a 90-page order that the state's new voting restrictions violate both the equal-protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law unduly burdens minority voters, he ruled, without sufficient justification for doing so.

Adelman's ruling will be appealed by the Republican officials who enacted it in 2011. It is far from certain that the ruling will withstand review by the very conservative 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the even more conservative Supreme Court, which in 2008's Crawford v. Marion County declared that state voter-ID laws could be constitutional. In the meantime, the law—which required all voters to present photo identification to vote—is enjoined from enforcement.

No matter how they rule, appellate judges can't erase Adelman's meticulous work. More than any other ruling yet issued on the current generation of voter-ID laws—more than the 2012 rulings in Texas or South Carolina or the ruling this year in Pennsylvania—Adelman directly confronts and demolishes the myth that these measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of elections by preventing "voter fraud."

Tuesday's ruling in Frank v. Walker does for the judicial canon what Jane Mayer's work on the myth of "voter fraud" did in the realm of journalism. For page after page, Adelman lays bare the shibboleth that these measures, which disproportionately burden the poor, elderly, and infirm, are necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Because when democracy no longer works in your favor, it's time to attack it ...

by Original Quill Thu May 01, 2014 5:47 pm

But, you have a US Supreme Court that will indulge these RW excuses. I'm cautious.

by Ben Reilly Thu May 01, 2014 5:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:But, you have a US Supreme Court that will indulge these RW excuses. I'm cautious.

The thing that gives me hope here is all the thorough debunking of the notion of voter fraud Adelman has done. That's going to stay in this case as far as it goes.

by Guest Thu May 01, 2014 5:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
A long and bitter Wisconsin trial ended Tuesday afternoon with a sweeping defeat for supporters of a voter-ID law designed to make it more difficult for citizens to cast ballots. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declared in a 90-page order that the state's new voting restrictions violate both the equal-protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law unduly burdens minority voters, he ruled, without sufficient justification for doing so.

Adelman's ruling will be appealed by the Republican officials who enacted it in 2011. It is far from certain that the ruling will withstand review by the very conservative 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the even more conservative Supreme Court, which in 2008's Crawford v. Marion County declared that state voter-ID laws could be constitutional. In the meantime, the law—which required all voters to present photo identification to vote—is enjoined from enforcement.

No matter how they rule, appellate judges can't erase Adelman's meticulous work. More than any other ruling yet issued on the current generation of voter-ID laws—more than the 2012 rulings in Texas or South Carolina or the ruling this year in Pennsylvania—Adelman directly confronts and demolishes the myth that these measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of elections by preventing "voter fraud."

Tuesday's ruling in Frank v. Walker does for the judicial canon what Jane Mayer's work on the myth of "voter fraud" did in the realm of journalism. For page after page, Adelman lays bare the shibboleth that these measures, which disproportionately burden the poor, elderly, and infirm, are necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Because when democracy no longer works in your favor, it's time to attack it ...

Don't know about the US, but over here voter fraud's always to the benefit of the left - Labour, i.e. Tower Hamlets. Probably the same sort of thing over there. Why shouldn't voters have to prove their identity? Because if there were only real genuine voters voting, the left would never win!

by Ben Reilly Thu May 01, 2014 5:51 pm

Tesstacious wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
A long and bitter Wisconsin trial ended Tuesday afternoon with a sweeping defeat for supporters of a voter-ID law designed to make it more difficult for citizens to cast ballots. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declared in a 90-page order that the state's new voting restrictions violate both the equal-protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law unduly burdens minority voters, he ruled, without sufficient justification for doing so.

Adelman's ruling will be appealed by the Republican officials who enacted it in 2011. It is far from certain that the ruling will withstand review by the very conservative 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the even more conservative Supreme Court, which in 2008's Crawford v. Marion County declared that state voter-ID laws could be constitutional. In the meantime, the law—which required all voters to present photo identification to vote—is enjoined from enforcement.

No matter how they rule, appellate judges can't erase Adelman's meticulous work. More than any other ruling yet issued on the current generation of voter-ID laws—more than the 2012 rulings in Texas or South Carolina or the ruling this year in Pennsylvania—Adelman directly confronts and demolishes the myth that these measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of elections by preventing "voter fraud."

Tuesday's ruling in Frank v. Walker does for the judicial canon what Jane Mayer's work on the myth of "voter fraud" did in the realm of journalism. For page after page, Adelman lays bare the shibboleth that these measures, which disproportionately burden the poor, elderly, and infirm, are necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Because when democracy no longer works in your favor, it's time to attack it ...
Don't know about the US, but over here voter fraud's always to the benefit of the left - Labour, i.e. Tower Hamlets. Probably the same sort of thing over there. Why shouldn't voters have to prove their identity? Because if there were only real genuine voters voting, the left would never win!

There is no voter fraud here of any appreciable nature, that's what this entire story has been establishing.

by Guest Thu May 01, 2014 5:56 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:
Don't know about the US, but over here voter fraud's always to the benefit of the left - Labour, i.e. Tower Hamlets. Probably the same sort of thing over there. Why shouldn't voters have to prove their identity? Because if there were only real genuine voters voting, the left would never win!

There is no voter fraud here of any appreciable nature, that's what this entire story has been establishing.

Just read the link. It says: "Judge Lynn Adleman writes that the facts don't justify restrictions that unduly burden minorities." Why does it unduly burden minorities?? Is it more difficult for them to prove their ID than anyone else? I don't get it.

by Original Quill Thu May 01, 2014 6:36 pm

Tesstacious wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

There is no voter fraud here of any appreciable nature, that's what this entire story has been establishing.

Just read the link. It says: "Judge Lynn Adleman writes that the facts don't justify restrictions that unduly burden minorities." Why does it unduly burden minorities?? Is it more difficult for them to prove their ID than anyone else? I don't get it.

Well, it's cleverly thought out by conservative foundations. They carve out restrictions that uniquely burden minorities, seniors and women. A state picture ID is what they call it, but they mean drivers license. Seniors often don't have a drivers license. Or, women often take a married name, so their birth certificate does not reflect their name when they present it at the poll. These then become the basis for denying them a ballot.

This stuff is easy, and conservatives have done it for centuries. Particularly with Blacks. What do you think Jim Crow laws were designed for? Poll taxes? Educational requirements or literacy tests? Did you know that former slaves were prohibited from gaining an education? Voila! They are all aimed at disenfranchising a class of people.

by Irn Bru Thu May 01, 2014 9:50 pm

Tesstacious wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
A long and bitter Wisconsin trial ended Tuesday afternoon with a sweeping defeat for supporters of a voter-ID law designed to make it more difficult for citizens to cast ballots. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declared in a 90-page order that the state's new voting restrictions violate both the equal-protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law unduly burdens minority voters, he ruled, without sufficient justification for doing so.

Adelman's ruling will be appealed by the Republican officials who enacted it in 2011. It is far from certain that the ruling will withstand review by the very conservative 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the even more conservative Supreme Court, which in 2008's Crawford v. Marion County declared that state voter-ID laws could be constitutional. In the meantime, the law—which required all voters to present photo identification to vote—is enjoined from enforcement.

No matter how they rule, appellate judges can't erase Adelman's meticulous work. More than any other ruling yet issued on the current generation of voter-ID laws—more than the 2012 rulings in Texas or South Carolina or the ruling this year in Pennsylvania—Adelman directly confronts and demolishes the myth that these measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of elections by preventing "voter fraud."

Tuesday's ruling in Frank v. Walker does for the judicial canon what Jane Mayer's work on the myth of "voter fraud" did in the realm of journalism. For page after page, Adelman lays bare the shibboleth that these measures, which disproportionately burden the poor, elderly, and infirm, are necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Because when democracy no longer works in your favor, it's time to attack it ...
Don't know about the US, but over here voter fraud's always to the benefit of the left - Labour, i.e. Tower Hamlets. Probably the same sort of thing over there. Why shouldn't voters have to prove their identity? Because if there were only real genuine voters voting, the left would never win!

That's just nonsense Tess and there have many instances of the Tory candidates committing voting fraud.

From the Electoral Commision

Electoral fraud in the UK
Final report and recommendations
January 2014

3.14 should be temporary restrictions or the suspension of certain voting methods – in particular postal and proxy voting – in areas where there had been recent proven cases of electoral fraud. When we sought further views on the implications of a “special measures” approach, however, there was little support for the proposal among respondents to our consultation or members of the public.

Overall, this approach was not seen as a proportionate response, 3.15penalising the vast majority of law-abiding voters and campaigners in an area in order to deal with the risk of criminal actions by a relatively small number of corrupt campaigners. Several suggested that the focus should be on identifying and dealing with the perpetrators of fraud, rather than penalising the whole electorate in specific areas by introducing temporary restrictions.

Electoral fraud is not widespread across the UK and reports of significant fraud are focused in specific places in England, concentrated in a small number of local authority areas. We do not believe it is likely that fraud has been attempted in more than a handful of wards in any particular local authority area.

Click here for the report

by gerber Thu May 01, 2014 9:55 pm

The lid dens will be the winners in England at the next election.

Cable has had an agreement with the bosses of Royal Mail. They have agreed in return for the flotation to provide free stamps for the party and all their postal votes.

Re vote rigging / fraud what happened in Florida when Bush was standing ?

by Irn Bru Thu May 01, 2014 10:05 pm

gerber wrote:The lid dens will be the winners in England at the next election.

Cable has had an agreement with the bosses of Royal Mail. They have agreed in return for the flotation to provide free stamps for the party and all their postal votes.

Re vote rigging / fraud what happened in Florida when Bush was standing ?

by Sponsored content

Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws

Re: Important judicial ruling gives hope to opponents of Republican voter ID laws