Democrat Clinton Appointee Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law
I have read the opinion (.pdf), and, shockingly, it is nonsense. In a nutshell, the judge finds that 1) there ain’t no such thing as voter fraud, and 2) obtaining a photo ID is second in difficulty only to scaling Mount Everest.
You will be shocked to learn that the judge was appointed by Bill Clinton and was a Democrat in Wisconsin’s State Senate from 1977 to 1997.
I’m not going to spend hours of my life deconstructing the judge’s partisan claptrap, but let me note one teensy tiny little hole in the judge’s argument. After he gets done asserting that there ain’t no such thing as fraud by voter impersonation, he addresses a topic that I have railed about here in the past. Namely: the overwhelming likelihood that illegal immigrants, who habitually present fraudulent documentation in every other walk of life, and habitually and illegally claim rights of citizenship that they have not earned, just might possibly decide to vote as if they were a citizen. Especially if nobody is checking IDs. As I said in 2010:
Estimates say that there are anywhere from 10 million to 18 million illegal immigrants in the country. This means millions are of voting age. What’s more, many of them are experts at obtaining false documents, allowing them to work, drive, and participate in all other aspects of civic life. Do we really think that none of them vote? None? Let’s go with a conservative estimate of 10,000,000 illegal immigrants. If only one percent of them vote — just one percent! — that’s 100,000 illegal votes. That is voter fraud on a massive scale — certainly enough to tip a close election. This sort of thing dilutes your vote.
It has happened in New Mexico and I bet you it has happened in Wisconsin.
Here’s what the good Democrat judge says about that:
The defendants contend that the photo ID requirement will help detect and deter forms of voter fraud other than voter impersonation. However, the defendants do not adequately explain how that could be so. The first type of unlawful voting the defendants cite is “voting under invalid voter registrations.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 12–13. The examples the defendants give of this kind of voter fraud are voting by a registered voter who has been convicted of a felony and voting by a non-citizen who has managed to register to vote.
However, the defendants do not explain how the requirement to present an ID at the polls will prevent these types of unlawful voting, and I cannot think of any way that it could. If a person is registered and has a valid ID, that person will be allowed to vote. No evidence in the record indicates that persons convicted of a felony or non-citizens will be unable to present qualifying forms of ID.
That’s pages 20-21 of the opinion. Remember that, folks: there is NO EVIDENCE in the record indicating that non-citizens will be unable to present voter IDs.
NO EVIDENCE, I TELL YOU!!!
Serious You Guys, I am over here racking my brain trying to think of a way that an ID requirement could prevent non-citizens from voting, and I am just coming up empty!
If you’re already rubbing your eyes in amazement, just wait until you hit the part of the opinion where the good Democrat judge talks about how very very hard it is to get these IDs.
For almost all low-income voters who lack an ID, the easiest ID to obtain will be the free state ID card, which is issued by the DMV. To obtain a state ID card, a person generally must present documents that satisfy four requirements: (1) proof of name and date of birth, (2) proof of United States citizenship or legal presence in the United States, (3) proof of identity, and (4) proof of Wisconsin residency. See Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 102.15.
That’s at page 26.
!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you see it? I bolded it for you so you would! Did you?
Now, the highlighted portion does allow non-citizens who are legally present in the United States to obtain a state ID card, so requiring a state ID card would not neatly exclude every non-citizen from voting. But it would exclude non-citizens who are not legally present in the country — absent the presentation of fraudulent documents to obtain a state ID card.
So, gee, Mr. Judge, doesn’t it seem like maybe the ID requirement might kinda help after all?
By the way, those requirements are what is necessary to obtain a state ID card, which (according to the judge) is the easiest kind of ID to get. The main other acceptable forms of ID include a Wisconsin driver’s license, an “ID card issued by a United States uniformed service,” or a U.S. passport. These also seem difficult to come by, if you’re an illegal immigrant, except by fraud.
In short, the judge is either exceedingly dense, or he is a liar. Perhaps both, but certainly not neither.
I hope the state of Wisconsin appeals this, and stuffs a resounding reversal opinion right down this judge’s partisan Democrat throat.
A little outraged today.Patterico (9c670f) — 4/29/2014 @ 7:54 pm
the UN must renounce this decision immediately and move to protect the rights of the good citizens of our banana republic, for the good men and women of the United Nations, they know as surely as do we…
that the people what corrupted the IRS, the Departments of Justice and Commerce and Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA and various and sundry other failmerican government organs…
they’ll have no compunction about corrupting the process of voting
it’s who they are
it’s what they do
help us Bankee Quack Quack Coffee Anon Moon Duc!
Please for the love of Godhappyfeet (8ce051) — 4/29/2014 @ 7:54 pm
Am I right in thinking that the state challenges to the law failed and that the law was upheld by the State Supreme Court, and this is the action against the same law in federal court.
Isn’t there some joke about getting lawyers to do jobs nobody else will, especially when it comes to covering for Dems no matter how much of an ignoramus one appears to be.MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:10 pm
And wasn’t there just some study about 35,000 duplicate voters in NC and other states in 2012?
Every fraudulent vote is a lawful vote being cancelled. This is absolute evil. These guys know the game.
A presidential election was recently decided over a few hundred votes. As hard as it is to prove vote and election fraud, it’s proven often, and plainly the tip of the iceberg.
It’s very sad. This country has it all, and we’re wasting it. From the unfunded entitlement liabilities, to deficit spending, to fraudulent elections, to spying on law abiders, to drone executions without due process, to a million other things, this society is setting itself up for failure. Where do the good guys turn to fix these problems? The game is rigged to where the lesser evil options are certain to lead us to the exact same place.
The worst part is that most folks don’t care, and many are passionately ignorant.
Good post, as usual, and damning, as often.Dustin (1436c2) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:22 pm
You can but hope that the rest of the WI judiciary doesn’t have its head as far up its ass as this bozon… This would not surprise, either. :-SSmock Puppet, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:29 pm
This is federal court; it will go to the Seventh Circuit COurt of Appeals.Patterico (9c670f) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:35 pm
Thanks, Dustin, and nice to see you, as always. I felt some of the old outrage juices flowing on this one.Patterico (9c670f) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:36 pm
Thanks, man!Dustin (1436c2) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:38 pm
this society is setting itself up for failure.
And just how bad it will be is the million-dollar question. In trying to be as accurate a prognosticator as possible, I often wonder whether I’m being either overly or accurately pessimistic about the future. (I don’t worry about my not being pessimistic enough.)
Politics aside, it wasn’t that long ago when I bought into the conventional wisdom that not only would the US remain far too dependent on foreign sources for oil, but that it would become increasingly and dangerously dependent on such sources. So it’s quite a surprise to learn that apparently just the opposite of that is happening, due mainly to new technology in oil extraction. But that, of course, is just one small part of the puzzle.
Overall, I still think we’re facing a future of the interminable socialism of Europe, the odd anomie of Japan, the amorality of PRC China, all combined with the rampant mediocrity and corruption of a nation like Mexico or Argentina, and at that point, the jig is up.Mark (59e5be) — 4/29/2014 @ 8:49 pm
Sometimes, after the Supreme Court has ruled on something, it is settled law, to be changed only by Executive fiat.JD (6a6c22) — 4/29/2014 @ 9:11 pm
It’s time to start impeaching Federal judges for being Felony Stupid.askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/29/2014 @ 11:17 pm
The LAT article mentions that there are around 300 thousand minorities without a form of ID (in Wisconsin?). But even without looking at the data, I can guess that there are MILLIONS of minorities in Wisconsin who have at least a driver’s license. They comfortably outnumber their “disenfranchised” counterparts, maybe by a 10 to 1 margin.
The illusion of racism is created when you consider that minorities make up the majority of a small group of people who lack photo IDs. And some of those minorities are non white immigrants who do not qualify for photo IDs.
The left points out to some 90 year old black grandmother or a war veteran who were turned away because they lacked ID. But their unique circumstances have nothing to do with race.lee (b2dfc0) — 4/30/2014 @ 12:15 am
It is hard for persons of color, other than felons, illegal aliens, minors and people from out-of-state to get IDs. Isn’t that clear?Kevin M (b11279) — 4/30/2014 @ 12:31 am
By the way, whatever tf happened to Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (553 U.S. 181 (2008)?
How are these cases different? Isn’t a 6-2 Supreme Court decision binding? Help me out here.Kevin M (b11279) — 4/30/2014 @ 12:35 am
Seems to me the judge is aiding and abetting vote fraud with that opinion. Wisconsin needs to file RICO charges against the judge. You can beat the rap, but you at least have to take the rid.Mark L (da8bb9) — 4/30/2014 @ 4:50 am
So improve the voter registration card to include a photo.crazy (d60cb0) — 4/30/2014 @ 5:17 am
I am in the process of attempting to get a passport. In addition to the over $100 cost in fees and photo, there is a lengthy requirement for documentation of U.S. birth.
I had my application returned. I am not sure, but I think it was because I didn’t have one of those three dimensional seals on one of my two required birth documents.
What they do is send a letter giving a list of things that might be missing. You have to guess which thing or things on the list is/are missing and resubmit. Also, the documents sent in the first time are not returned, so one really does have to guess what the problem is.
I would like a judge to explain to me why the poor and minorities are prevented from traveling outside the U.S. by cost, inability to negotiate a bureau, and inconvenience.Fred Beloit (2e7f95) — 4/30/2014 @ 6:12 am
Nothing, nothing is worse than an ignorant, illogical, or politically driven judge.
“One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, 1825
If only Old Tom could see us now!2WarAbnVet (296217) — 4/30/2014 @ 7:08 am
The left has corrupted everything it has touched in tho country. The government and it’s beauracracies, the schools, the media and the courts. If they ever manage to get the guns it will be game over.Funeral Guy (26d185) — 4/30/2014 @ 11:59 am
The Clintons know that Hitlary would not win if all was legal. Hitlary figures she must fix the election like Obama. What a dirty bunch of . . .ljcarolyne (9a92e4) — 4/30/2014 @ 9:52 pm
It is time to RICO the Democrat party, including the judges. This is an organized criminal conspiracy to acquire the wealth of Americans by acquiring political domination via fraud and force.Smarty (efeb5a) — 5/1/2014 @ 4:28 am
I share your outrage. This ruling is an obvious partisan enabling of election fraud. It ought to get this judge impeached.
That won’t happen, of course.WannabeAnglican (0d680c) — 5/2/2014 @ 5:36 am
Lets make a law stating it needs to be as difficult to exercise one right as another. I need to prove age, who I am with id, pay a fee, take training(have to pay for that as well), and carry my proof on my person when I carry a weapon concealed as well as having my photo id and need to surrender it to leo when I open carry. Why is that right(in both state and federal constitution) any different than voting? I also have to prove my identity when getting a fishing liscence. Seems someone is trying to stack the deck especially considering that the majority of crimes commited in this state are by the same minorities that can’t seem to get an id to vote…how are they getting ids to purchase and carry firearms?Fishaddict (9a8117) — 5/3/2014 @ 9:25 am