Wisconsin State Senate Recalls

Wisconsin's state Supreme Court yesterday kicked both of the Act 23 (Voter ID) cases (Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP at al. v. Scott Walker et al. and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walker et al.) back to their respective appelate courts.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan in March blocked the voter ID law for the April presidential primary, saying it likely disenfranchised voters, based on testimony that there are more than 220,000 Wisconsin residents who do not have photo IDs but who are otherwise qualified to vote.

A trial in that case began Monday, and Flanagan is expected to decide whether to lift his injunction or block the law permanently after it concludes this week. The case was brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera.

Also in March, in a case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess permanently blocked enforcement of the voter ID law because he said it violated the state constitution. The state constitution allows the Legislature to exclude felons and mentally incompetent people from voting, but not other groups of people. Niess ruled the law creates a new category of people who cannot vote - those without ID - and thus violates the state constitution.

The Department of Justice appealed both decisions - the NAACP case to an appeals panel based in Waukesha, and the League of Women Voters case to one based in Madison. Both appeals panels told the Supreme Court it should take up the cases directly because of their importance.

But the Supreme Court on Monday rejected that plan in two pro-forma orders that were each one sentence long.

Also today, the Government Accountability Board will be meeting to decide whether the fake Democrats the Wisconsin GOP is running will be allowed on the ballot the upcoming recalls (the expectation is that the GAB will rule to allow them on the ballot, but I'll update with anything interesting that comes out of the hearing).

As expected, the GAB ruled in favor of allowing all fake Democrats on the ballot.

Joe Olson of Michael Best & Friedrich law firm, the attorney for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, told the board that Wisconsin's open primary system allows anyone to run and the elections are about "the will of the electors, not the will of the political elite." And he said there was nothing secretive about the GOP strategy.

"If it's public and obvious, how can it be secret and nefarious at the same time?" Olson said.

The board voted to deny the complaint after hearing from attorneys for Democrats and Republicans as well as Democratic recall candidate Lori Compas, who is challenging incumbent state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, the Senate Republican leader, in the recall, warned of widespread confusion among voters.

"Just this past weekend a woman asked me for some sort of proof that I was the 'real' candidate," Compas said. "She asked me if the ballot would indicate which candidates were fake."

But elections staff said in the Monday memo "that Wisconsin law does not permit the board to deny ballot access to the protest candidates."

GAB staff counsel Mike Haas told the board that Wisconsin election laws do not require candidates to be members of the party they file to run as on ballots, and said elections officials can't investigate the motivations of candidates.

I'm not entirely clear how taking candidates at their word that they are purposely running as fake Democrats is the same as investigating their motivations, but I agree with the GAB that this tactic is probably legal.

Primary elections for our upcoming recalls were held yesterday. With all precincts reporting, here are the winners:

Governor (D): Tom Barrett
Governor (R): Scott Walker
Lt. Governor (D): Mahlon Mitchell
Lt. Governor (R): Rebecca Kleefisch (uncontested)
State Senate - District 13 (D): Lori Compas
State Senate - District 21 (D): John Lehman
State Senate - District 23 (D): Kristin Dexter

None of the State Senate Republican primaries were contested, since the Wisconsin Democratic Party refused to run fake candidates. Scott Walker faced opposition in the form of Arthur Kohl-Riggs, a young protestor who ran as a "Lincoln Republican", with no support from the Democratic Party.

All of the fake Democrats were defeated.

Scott Fitzgerald doesn't believe that Lori Compas is capable of being the real force behind her campaign.

Fitzgerald said he thinks her husband is one of the main forces behind her campaign, as well as unions and protest groups.

"I don't for one minute believe she is the organizing force behind this whole thing," he said.
When told of Fitzgerald's statement, Compas was audibly stunned.

"That is pretty insulting, but it does seem in keeping with his general views on women," she said. "He doesn't seem to have a lot of respect for them. That's OK; he can keep underestimating me."

Compas said that if Fitzgerald really doubts she is a serious candidate, he should accept her invitation to debate. "I have challenged him to five debates," she said. "If he thinks I can't handle myself, he should come out and face me."

Current results show John Lehman defeating Republican incumbent Van Wanggaard by 779 votes, out of a total of 71,731 votes cast.

A winning margin of 1.08% means that any recount will need to be paid for by the Wanggaard campaign - in Wisconsin, taxpayer-funded recounts occur with the margin is less than 0.5% of the votes.

I expect there will be a recount.

Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation and needed my driver's license several times to check in my bags, get through security, even buy a freaking beer (I'm in my 30s but the waitress was being overzealous). If you need an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun, buy a beer, etc, why is it unreasonable to expect that you have an ID to vote?

The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.

jdzappa wrote:

Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation and needed my driver's license several times to check in my bags, get through security, even buy a freaking beer (I'm in my 30s but the waitress was being overzealous). If you need an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun, buy a beer, etc, why is it unreasonable to expect that you have an ID to vote?

The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.

all of those are privileges except the gun one, and there's plenty of people who think you shouldn't need an ID to exercise that right, either.

Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.

Throw in the fact that "flooding the polls with ineligible voters" has never happened in recent history, and bam: right wing conspiracy.

jdzappa wrote:

The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.

How about you prove that there's a flood of ineligible votes or voter fraud *before* you push for voter ID laws? Otherwise, you're basically pushing a Big Government solution to a non-existent problem.

We've discussed this topic before and there simply isn't anything that could be remotely considered voter fraud at the level that would demand a voter ID scheme. The only reason it's backed by conservatives is that it's a very effective way to disenfranchise people who historically have voted against Republicans: people who are too poor to afford a car, fly, go on a summer vacation, etc.

Because A) None of the other things you listed are guaranteed by the Constitution; and B) Eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, not a picture ID-- are you a legal adult citizen? You're technically eligible to vote.

But the main issue is that in many cases, especially in low-income, urban areas, getting a voter ID can be extremely difficult, if not impossible (full-time jobs, public transit, disability, etc may prevent folks from ever getting to the DMV to get their ID). The argument is that a voter ID law creates a barrier that will generally lower voter turnout in areas that demand the social programs that most conservatives are against, thus disenfranchising those otherwise-eligible voters.

Edit: T-T-T-TANNHAUSER'd!

Between October 2002 through September 2005, only 95 cases of voter fraud were initiated by the U.S. Justice Department, of which 70 ended in a conviction.

How many millions of votes were cast between 2002 and 2005? Millions upon millions because that time frame included a Presidential election.

At some point, something is so statistically insignificant you end up using a nuclear bomb to kill a flea.

jdzappa wrote:

Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation and needed my driver's license several times to check in my bags, get through security, even buy a freaking beer (I'm in my 30s but the waitress was being overzealous). If you need an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun, buy a beer, etc, why is it unreasonable to expect that you have an ID to vote?

The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.

We've covered this ground (thread's worth a read). At the risk of repeating myself:

Dimmerswitch[/url]]To put it in perspective:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

In short, it's "solving" a nonexistent problem, and creating more barriers to participation in the democratic process.

Seth wrote:

Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.

Dubious of what? If you're going to say what I think, it would help to quote me so I know what I said.

Funkenpants wrote:
Seth wrote:

Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.

Dubious of what? If you're going to say what I think, it would help to quote me so I know what I said.

Starts here:

www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/108446?p...

you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?

Right: first realize that they're solving a problem that does not exist. That alone should tell you what the purpose of voter ID laws is. There is no problem, so they're clearly trying to solve something else. There's only one valid explanation I can see.

Remember, getting an ID is fairly involved for someone who's really poor. You're not poor; relatively speaking, you've got lots of money. Even getting a copy of your birth certificate is typically $20 or more, and when fully employed people can be living like sh*t, and even still scraping along on like $25/week actually in their pockets, that's kind of a big deal. Something that's a slight bump in the ground to you can be a major hurdle to people on the bottom.

And Republicans would love to keep people like that out of the polls. That's the reason for voter ID laws.

Do you really want to stop voter fraud in this country? If so, focus on the people counting the ballots, not the people casting them.

Malor wrote:

Do you really want to stop voter fraud in this country? If so, focus on the people counting the ballots, not the people casting them.

This. Vote fraud comes from the top, not the people.

jdzappa wrote:

Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation

Well there you go. If your frame of reference is "I was coming back from summer vacation..." you're not putting yourself in the shoes of a lot of possibly disenfranchised voters.

Seth wrote:

you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?

I asked for numbers that backed up the allegation that married women are disenfranchised, but you never provided any numbers to back up the claim. Instead, what you gave me was the sort of policy brief that comes out of interest groups on both sides. Neither one provided methodology or supporting statistics for their claims. They didn't point to any races where disenfranchisement of married women was a factor in the outcome. Why you'd want to raise that again is beyond me.

I think jdzappa's asking an honest question here. Rather than moving the conversation into personal frames of reference, I'll quote Yonder's outstanding post from way upthread:

Yonder[/url]]

MattDaddy wrote:

Then getting into a vehicle and showing up at the polling place is a barrier. As is waiting in line, and finding out where you need to go to vote. Being able to read may be a barrier. Getting a absentee ballot would also be a barrier.

Exactly! For each separate case you have to carefully decide whether that barrier is one that simply needs to be there, or whether it's reasonable to lessen it.

Of the ones you listed the first one is a no-go. If you have so few polling stations that a vehicle is required to get to them then that's a pretty large barrier, especially in one of the many states that have rotten transportation. The expense of having enough polling places that nearly all people have one within walking distance absolutely sounds like a reasonable one. Only as a last resort (for example in the most rural and depopulated areas) should people need to resort to mailing in their ballot or renting a taxi.

As far as waiting in line goes, that's a barrier too, so some steps need to be taken to mitigate that. Some states make election day a holiday, so that everyone has more time available to vote. Other states mandate paid time off for part of the day, in California two hours is mandated. Working at it from the other direction there need to be enough polling places that are staffed well enough to let everyone vote in a reasonable amount of time. What's reasonable? I have no idea, I think that if people had to wait four hours in line to vote pretty much everyone could agree that that wasn't right. On the other hand I don't think that anyone would want to pay $10 billion to lower the average wait time from three minutes to two minutes.

As far as finding out where you need to go, that's also a barrier, and you probably notice every year that the government goes through a lot of effort every year keeping that a tiny barrier. They don't just throw it up on a website somewhere, that's not a big barrier for me, but I guarantee you that my grandparents may miss that election. You can find it online, and there are generally signs outside the polling places for at least several days leading up to the election, they mail you the address of your polling place, they generally put up fliers in libraries, supermarkets, and other public places, especially government-run public places. My local Subway and Baskin Robbins each have a bulletin board inside with various community events that always includes local polling places near election days. I've also lived in places with hotlines that you could call to get the address of your polling place, the number of the hotline was on many of the aforementioned fliers, as well as being advertised on the radio.

As far as being able to read, that does seem like a fairly reasonable barrier. It's a small barrier because pretty much everyone can read, in large part due to the fact that this country has free public education up through 12th grade. If that wasn't true, or if illiteracy was somehow a large problem regardless of that fact, then that would start to become an unreasonable barrier, especially with the ease that that could be fixed using modern technology. ("Punch the first circle to vote for XXX, punch the second circle to vote for YYY" through a pair of earphones). What if someone can read, but they can't see? That's exactly why they make Braille ballots.

It is never ok to point to a barrier and just through your hands up in the air and say that's the way it has to be. You have to continuously minimize these barriers as much as is reasonable (reasonable obviously being up for debate). Also pointing at existing barriers and saying "oh well, there are already some barriers, no reason not to put in new barriers" is absolutely terrible rationale.

Yonder wrote:

I used to think that same day registration, and the fact that if you were registered you could vote without any ID was odd, but the fact that after the election the government can easily make sure that your identity wasn't used to vote twice seems to be an acceptable defense for most frauds, and the other stuff like felons and dead people voting can and is caught just by keeping the registered voter list updated.

MattDaddy wrote:

After the election it's too late. The illegal vote has been counted. You can't just go into the bin and remove Joe Smith's ballot.

That seems like exactly the sort of electoral process change that the money should be better spent on. If it's even true that Wisconsin has no measures in place to discount discovered vote fraud, then what the heck is the point of the ID cards. "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street. Shame we can't do anything about that." Just becomes "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street with ID card number 173423876. Shame we can't do anything about that."

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I think jdzappa's asking an honest question here. Rather than moving the conversation into personal frames of reference,

And I'm giving an honest answer. I don't think the conversation should be moved from personal frames of reference. Our idea of what is "common sense" has to do with what looks 'normal' to us. If we think everyone is living the same kind of life we are, sure it can look like only people who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters are the ones who would have a problem with needing the ID 'we' need to function in our idea of an 'average' everyday life. The issue is that *our* everyday life is not *their* everyday life. A lot of people don't fly. A lot of people live somewhere that buying a gun--let alone a beer--doesn't involve the need for ID. There are a lot of places in this country where there are no overzealous waitresses. There are no waitresses, period.

I honestly believe that many of our differences in political opinions are differences in imagination. The ability to imagine life circumstances different from ours. I think that's clearly what is at work here: some people imagine the lives of others as too similar to their own.

Fair enough. In my experience, that shift (especially in political discussions) is never productive and derails the potential for meaningful discussion of the issues at hand.

YMMV.

Spoiler:

Of course, YMMANV. :)

Funkenpants wrote:
Seth wrote:

you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?

I asked for numbers that backed up the allegation that married women are disenfranchised, but you never provided any numbers to back up the claim. Instead, what you gave me was the sort of policy brief that comes out of interest groups on both sides. Neither one provided methodology or supporting statistics for their claims. They didn't point to any races where disenfranchisement of married women was a factor in the outcome. Why you'd want to raise that again is beyond me.

You were - and are, apparently - still dubious. So I suppose my answer is "yes," you will find fault with my source. if you can't see the similarity between voter disenfranchisement and voter disenfranchisement, I don't know where else a discussion can go.

You don't have to have an id to fly or go through security, they just want you to think you do.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Fair enough. In my experience, that shift (especially in political discussions) is never productive and derails the potential for meaningful discussion of the issues at hand.

YMMV.

Spoiler:

Of course, YMMANV. :)

Heh, my experience is that discussions--especially political ones--are never productive without it. Otherwise it's just two sides arguing for why their hypothetical is valid instead of having that meaningful discussion. If your frame of reference is one where you do lots of things where an ID is required, it doesn't look like anyone is putting barriers to participation in the democratic process. How much of a barrier is it to pull out your wallet? I don't blame people for thinking that there's something fishy about the ruckus over Voter ID if they think it means just treating the voting booth like Hooters. jdzappa is 100% right: it does look like common sense from his personal frame of reference.

In fact, I'd say Yonder's post that you quoted as a great example is about exactly that: "They don't just throw it up on a website somewhere, that's not a big barrier for me, but I guarantee you that my grandparents may miss that election" is all about how one's frame of reference changes how big the barrier appears.

It's a derail for this thread, and I know how much you love semantic hair-splitting, so I'll simply point out that: Yonder's post was factually grounded even without the three sentences sharing his personal experience, and that sharing your personal experience or frame of reference is rather different than speculating about someone else's.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

It's a derail for this thread, and I know how much you love semantic hair-splitting, so I'll simply point out that: Yonder's post was factually grounded even without the three sentences sharing his personal experience, and that sharing your personal experience or frame of reference is rather different than speculating about someone else's. ;)

If you think 'frame of reference of a person who goes on summer vacation' is speculation and not factually grounded when it's based on the person saying "I was coming back from summer vacation..." I'm not the one engaged in semantic hair-splitting here ; D

Let's see who lets go first: The one holding the hair or the one holding the razor.

Not going to comment, because I just don't have the energy after 15 months. Just going to point out my unintentional "photo bomb" in John Lehman's victory announcement photo:

Wearing the Arsenal jersey.

IMAGE(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/40/e4028897-9f3f-5eb4-9fba-465125e23b4e/4fcf00b2c33ad.preview-620.jpg)

Awesome!

Thanks for all your involvement in this fight, SommerMatt. Once I get more settled at the new job, we'll look at hosting a S&T, and I'd love to buy you a beer or three.

I'm completely ok with issuing IDs for free or at cost to the disadvantaged. But if you don't believe voter fraud has never happened in this country, I'd like to point you to Chicago in the 20s or Tamminy Hall. Just because there hasn't been massive voter fraud in the past few years doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.

And my stance on voter IDs doesn't mean I also don't recognize the dirty tricks the Republicans used in Florida to get Bush elected. Honestly, this discussion could use its own thread.

jdzappa wrote:

I'm completely ok with issuing IDs for free or at cost to the disadvantaged. But if you don't believe voter fraud has never happened in this country, I'd like to point you to Chicago in the 20s or Tamminy Hall. Just because there hasn't been massive voter fraud in the past few years doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.

So, stuff from the 60's at the _earliest_ (When minorities had a hell of a time voting at all, I will add, with great emphasis.) justifies a regressive policy that can be used, with very little imagination, to suppress massive blocks of voters? There is not a polite way to say "f*ck that noise.", so I'm not even gonna try.

For perspective, this is not just before I was born, this is before my mother was born. We're between two and three generations out from that. I need something verifiable more recent than that.