We'll see if the GAB even certifies the Democrat recall elections. I've heard everyone is still wide awake in La Crosse. Bad news for Sen. Kapanke.

Yes Walter, Recall all the Dems!

Retired,
That's not true. All I need to hear is one single beautiful word: Recall. It's music to my ears, and I'm "feeling" better already.

Again...since you're position is opposite of current established law there is nothing others can say to make you "feel" better.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court it is, as this law is unable to "protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" any more than previous law already did. In fact, as the new law does nothing to specifically limit the number of felons attempting to vote (the most prevalent form of voter fraud in WI), it will only prove to hinder the voting process for people that had previously voted legally.

"I have the right to walk freely to my polling place a mere 100 yards from my residence as I have been doing for numerous past elections without a government issued current photo ID on my person."
-
Yes america is great.

"When this law goes into effect, I will no longer be able to exercise my right to vote when I get to the polling place without my ID"
-
Correct, without proving who you are you will not be able to vote. With an ID not only is your ability to vote intact you will be protected from anyone else voting in your name.

"which I am not legally obligated to carry when I walk the streets of my neighborhood. I am in the poll records as a registered voter who has proven my residence a mere 5 doors down from the polling place,..."
-
Yes america is great.

...but that will no longer matter because my right to vote has been fundamentally altered and infringed upon."
-
Yet according to the supreme court it is not. Again...since you're position is opposite of current established law there is nothing others can say to make you "feel" better.

I have the right to walk freely to my polling place a mere 100 yards from my residence as I have been doing for numerous past elections without a government issued current photo ID on my person. When this law goes into effect, I will no longer be able to exercise my right to vote when I get to the polling place without my ID which I am not legally obligated to carry when I walk the streets of my neighborhood. I am in the poll records as a registered voter who has proven my residence a mere 5 doors down from the polling place, but that will no longer matter because my right to vote has been fundamentally altered and infringed upon.

Really wally?

You won't be permitted? If you are a registered voter with a valid ID you can, nothing for you has changed except for a misconceived belief your right was taken away...since you're position is opposite of current established law there is nothing others can say to make you "feel" better.

Apparently you find it difficult to dispute my point without chopping it up into pieces.

Your own words...

Retired,
I will provide a larger excerpt from my post so others can understand how you took it out of context, a tactic which you often employ in a vain attempt to make your point:
"I have a right to walk out of the front door of my house without a government issued current photo ID on my person and proceed to my local polling place where I have already proven my residence. However, when I get to that polling place I will not be permitted to vote under the new law."

"when I get to that polling place I will not be permitted to vote under the new law."
-
You won't be permitted? If you are a registered voter with a valid ID you can, nothing for you has changed except for a misconceived belief your right was taken away...since you're position is opposite of current established law there is nothing others can say to make you "feel" better...I suggest you start your heartwarming car pool adventure for your friends.

"If they require food and medical care brought to them, under the new law nothing for them has changed."
-
Obviously you & the people that wrote this law have an unclear understanding of the variety of situations people live in. The obvious assumption that these lawmakers have made that those various living situations can be broken down into a couple short paragraphs shows just how ignorant they were in writing the law and how ignorant those supporting the law really are.
The right to vote has been fundamentally altered in the state of WI. I have a right to walk out of the front door of my house without a government issued current photo ID on my person and proceed to my local polling place where I have already proven my residence. However, when I get to that polling place I will not be permitted to vote under the new law. Justified by the ginned up threat of "voter fraud" the ridiculous Walker administration passed a law that should have been relegated to Orwellian fiction.
The recalls are coming, and it will take time, but all of this damage will be undone.

"By the way, what do the food they eat and medical care they receive have to do with their right to vote?"
-
Since their right to vote hasn't changed, nothing. If you are questioning the reason it was mentioned, that’s simple; if they are able to get groceries and medical care on their own they are surely capable of getting an ID card. If they require food and medical care brought to them, under the new law nothing for them has changed.

Good for you, it will do your heart well.

That is exactly what I will be doing, but it shouldn't have come to this. By the way, what do the food they eat and medical care they receive have to do with their right to vote? Once again the Republican justifications for voter ID have absolutely nothing to do with voting. What a surprise!
Anyway, in addition to helping the seniors of Rock County I'll also be spending time taking economically disadvantaged folks in Janesville & Beloit to get their free ID cards for the purpose of voting over the next few months. If I have the time I'll be doing the same over in Milwaukee at some point. I just can't stop this heart from bleeding.

Seeing that you are more kind than any republican I am sure then that you will take each of these fine people to get an ID... because you care more than everyone else.

Yeah okay there. These people, your friends, are not able to get around, are not in a care facility, yet they still have the ability to eat, live, seek medical care and have access to the latest laws but somehow they can't get an ID to vote...hmmmmm.

Retired,
Thanks for the link, but the people I referred to all have a copy of the law as I do. While none of them leave the complex they live in due to illness, phyiscal impairment, or other reasons, they are not living in a residential care facility or nursing home and are still bound to the requirements in the law which they are unable to abide by in order to vote. It doesn't take a "bleeding heart" to realize that there is a large gray area between seniors that can get around and are capable of doing everything they've always done and seniors that are confined to actual residential care facilities. Many in that gray area don't have friends or relatives to do things for them on a regular basis or at all. Honestly, I can't believe this is news to you or anyone including the legislators responsible for this ridiculous law.

Bring out the pity can and drop a coin or two. How absurd your misconceived sense of morality is if you think others have no compassion or feelings for others. Only bleeding hearts care no one else, get a grip. I have enclosed a link to the bill, based on your comments so far you have never read it. I also previously mentioned a supreme court ruling that declared voter ID is constitutional and does not infringe on yours or others rights. "If" your friends are truly homebound the bill has provisions for them.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/re...
Ref the bill: "any person who applies for an absentee ballot, except a military or overseas elector, as defined by federal law, or a person whose address is confidential as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, must also provide proof of identification or a copy thereof unless: 1) the person has already provided a copy of his or her proof of identification in connection with an absentee ballot cast at a previous election and has not changed his or her name or address since that election; 2) the person has been required by a law enforcement officer to surrender his or her license (see below); 3) the person is definitely confined, in which case the person may submit a statement signed by the person who witnesses his or her absentee ballot verifying his or her identity; 4) the person is an occupant of any nursing home, or is an occupant of a community-based residential facility, retirement home, adult family home, or residential care apartment complex where a municipality sends special voting deputies, in which case the person may submit a statement signed by the deputies verifying his or her identity; or 5) the person is an occupant of such a home, facility, or complex where a municipality does not send special voting deputies, in which case the person may submit a statement signed by the same person who witnesses his or her absentee ballot that contains the certification of an authorized representative of the home, facility, or complex verifying that the person resides at that home, facility, or complex. The substitute amendment continues current requirements for certain electors to verify residence in order to register or to vote, but discontinues the use of corroborating electors to verify residence."

Retired,
When a group of a dozen or so American registered voters that have never had any trouble voting in the past tell me that they have no idea how they're going to vote because of this new law, then, yes, I have witnessed how the law is harming the electoral process. I'm sure there are many other homebound folks who will be similarly affected by this silly new law.
Your arrogance and lack of compassion for these people and the threat to their right to vote that this law poses says a lot about you as a person. I suppose you figure they were probably committing voter fraud anyway, right? It appears that you, much like other Republicans, are incredibly easy to manipulate through utterly mindless pandering. It's almost as if Republican politicians don't even have to try to keep people like you misinformed and feeding from the trough. And you say I should "get a grip"? This from the person who claimed they could know the content of a posted comment without actually reading that comment. Remember this?:
"If you want to debate the topic based on the constitution and established law feel free, if on the other hand you just want to pretend how you are a victim I don't want to hear it and I won't read it."

"I've already witnessed evidence of this."
-
The law is not in place and you have witnessed the harm? Get a grip.

'I noticed not one person wanted to reply to my comment yesterday. Again, if there only a few murders, rapes, or other assorted crimes, does that make it okay? Should we look the other way because there are only a limited number of these crimes? If voter fraud is a crime, how does it differ from any other crime?'

unclesmoothie...based on a recent convo you and i had...i think you know the difference between a victimless crime and a crime where there is a victim. would you relate the crime you break, possession of tetrahydrocannibinol to those other crimes??

on a side note...the 'eyes are hittin an please dont get mad if someone is anchored at the mouth of the river if yer a 'drifter'...its prolly me:)

Ezoner & unclesmoothie,
You seem to be under the impression that there were no laws concerning voter identification prior to this new law. News flash...there were, and they were effectively containing voter fraud. The decreasing cases of voter fraud is pretty solid proof of the effectiveness of the previous law. Voter fraud was proven to not have been an issue in the previous election by a WI DOJ task force. So many people, yourselves included, keep talking about voter fraud as if there were no laws addressing it as a crime until the new uneccessarily restrictive law that was just passed. The fact is there was already voter identification laws, they were working just fine and nobody's right to vote was being threatened. Now the Republicans have taken things too far, and poll workers will be forced to demand valid government issued photo id with a current address from voters. A police officer can only demand that same information from you if they have sufficient reason to believe that you have committed a crime. Is there sufficient reason to believe that all voters are committing voter fraud? Apparently many of our lawmakers think so. Investigations by our own state government, however, have proven otherwise.

Zoom... my analogy of murder is irrelevant. The point is it's a crime. Just like voter fraud. Or speeding. Or drunk diving. Or burglary...... Is voter fraud a crime? No matter how many? A crime is just that. Look it up.

The law says it's a crime. It doesn't matter if it's one or one million..... a crime has still been committed. If you are interested in supporting anti crime.... decriminalize marijuana. How many poor slobs are doin time for that?

unclesmoothie, your "murder" analogy makes no sense. More restrictive laws could certainly be written, and processes put in place, to reduce violent crime even more, but at the cost of personal liberty and money to the law abiding citizens. This is exactly what the voter restriction law does, not to reduce fraud, but to restrict voting from Democratic voters; students and the poor. Analogies are dumb, and can always be refuted. Why not just argue the facts about the voter restriction law?

I'm still waiting for evidence of the significant voter fraud this law will prevent. It doesn't even prevent a known type of voting fraud; felons voting when inleligable. I guess Republicans consider them supporters.

Walter -- your logic is severely flawed....
There are so few murders in this country -- why have laws against it?
There are so few drunk drivers, why laws against that?
There are so few speeders, again laws....

The reality is or most fundamental activity is to elect our officials, we need laws to protect the integrity of our selections.

Have a great day Walter. I am outta here and heading to the lake for some walleyes ( I hope!) Always a pleasure sparring with you. It's too nice to be inside today.

Beats me Walter. Why does Radio Shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries? But the dems are just as guilty of finding ways to waste money at an equally alarming rate. It's a lose lose situation no matter who you are. It just seems the GOP is better at angering the masses.

unclesmoothie,
Noone was ever looking the other way on voter
fraud. There were various rules and laws put in place to combat the problem prior to this voter ID law. There have also been investigative task forces involving the WI DOJ that led to a few charges and convictions for voter fraud. Whatever "problem" there may have been had certainly been contained before this new law was passed. As far as your argument that the spending necessary for this law is just a pebble in the ocean, so are most government spending items. Combine all those pebbles together and millions become billions. Why is the spending for this obviously unnecessary law so justifiable to a party that claims to be so fiscally responsible?

Walter, I don't agree with any of it. But the money to implement voter I.D. is a pebble in the ocean of tax money being flushed down the toilet every single day. Professional politicians (from ALL parties) make me wanna retch. Our country has become a cesspool of bureaucratic red tape and waste. The only point I was trying to make is that a crime is a crime is a crime. Looking the other way on some and not others is total and complete hypocrisy.

unclesmoothie,
Ok, so even though the old laws were effective in limiting voter fraud to a statewide rate of nearly 0, a new law is necessary? I don't see the logic in that. I also don't see your logic when you try to justify our state government throwing away money on a unnecessary law simply because you think the federal government wastes money. That's pretty brilliant.

Retired,
Yes, the harm. I recently attended a meeting of individuals living in an apartment building for elderly residents. It is not a nursing home, but most have no way of leaving on their own. All have voted absentee in the past, but have found that the new regulations will now prevent them from voting as they have no one to handle the new paper work necessary to obtain their absentee ballots. I was never talking about new jobs or bank accounts. You're attempted comparisons are ridiculous. I believe the electoral process will be harmed more than it will be helped by this new law. I've already witnessed evidence of this.

Just because you do not hold a valid drivers license does not mean you have no valid I.D.

future instead of echoing the talking points from the AFLCIO why not post a link to the study they pulled data from?

http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/barriers/Drivers...

"A large number of licensed drivers have had their licenses suspended or revoked, many for failure to pay fines and forfeitures...A portion of the population with a drivers license and a recent suspension or revocation may retain their license as an ID for voting and others may secure a state photo ID. These licenses cannot be renewed, however, without clearing up the outstanding fines and fees."

Having all the facts, instead of part of them makes the picture much clearer.

Wisconsinites without driver's licenses:
•78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24
•23 percent of people over the age of 65
•17 percent of white men and women
•55 percent of all African American males and 49 percent of African American women
•46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women

As for throwing money at problems that do not exist...... sheesh! The federal government is tossing BILLIONS of dollars at inane and nonsensical problems at such an alarming rate it is difficult to track all of it.

If a crime isn't violent then it should be overlooked? Okay. Drunk drivers should only be prosecuted in the event of an accident which causes harm. Otherwise they are being singled out for the POSSIBILITY of something adverse happening due to their actions. It's akin to all voters paying for the crimes of others.

The harm? Are you harmed when you apply for a new job and they request identification. Are you harmed when you open a new bank account and they request your ID. Are you harmed when you try to obtain credit (apply for a loan) and they request your ID. Must be tough going through life being harmed all the time.

unclesmoothie,
I never responded because I didn't think you were a complete and total fool. Apparently, I was wrong. The difference between voter fraud and those other crimes you listed is obvious: violence. Physical and/or emotional harm caused to another human being. The laws regarding those other crimes are appropriate because of the severity of violent crimes. The money it will take to implement the new voter ID law and the potential for voter disenfranchisement are what makes the law heavy handed and unnecessary. The voter identification system in place before was keeping voter fraud to a minimum as it was. What is the point of throwing a whole bunch of money at a problem that doesn't exist?

Retired,
The law is far more "invidious" than it is "even-handed". The good that it probably will do will be far outweighed by the harm it will probably cause and the millions of dollars it will most definitely cost tax payers. It has been and will continue to be a waste of time and money.

walter if less speeding tickets are given this week than last are people following the posted limits more? The problem with your assumptions, you pretend because there was no convictions there was no fraud, do you feel the same with business' reporting income to the IRS? Why do banks have vaults if you assume people will follow the law?

unclesmoothie Jun 1, 2011 at 7:22 a.m.
Good Point! The problem you are having with responses by those on the left is that your statement is based on common sense, something they can't comprehend.

I noticed not one person wanted to reply to my comment yesterday. Again, if there only a few murders, rapes, or other assorted crimes, does that make it okay? Should we look the other way because there are only a limited number of these crimes? If voter fraud is a crime, how does it differ from any other crime?

By now we should all be familiar with the investigation into the 2008 election that produced 14 total charges of voter fraud and 5 convictions. A drastic reduction in alleged cases of fraud without a ridiculously restrictive voter ID law. WOW! Imagine that.

zoom did you read the report? A single instance of fraud is too much as that takes away your or my vote.

From the report; "The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 individual instances of suspected double-voting, voting in names of persons who likely did not vote, and/or voting in names believed to be fake. Those investigations continue."

You obviously haven't read the report. A small amount of potential fraud was found, but would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court, due to poor record keeping in the voting process. Voter ID doesn't address the record keeping problems, nor the more common problem of felons voting when ineligable.

Interesting link zoom. Too bad the city shut down the investigation prior to the next election and refused to investigate the findings of the report any further. Can't be any fraud if they don't find it...

TCB wrote: "What about the 4600 additional votes cast than voters registered in 2008?"

FALSE: The originator of this falsehood, The Washington Post, got it wrong. 4,609 more ballots came in than Milwaukee RECORDED as voting, not 4000 more than the number of REGISTERED voters. This is an administrative problem that would not be fixed by Voter ID. (page 5)
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/election...

frusion,
Best Buy, or any other business that asks for an ID, does not require that your address be correct.

Mudsill must have had his/her account deleted...again.

Great job WalterReuther.

TCB - this is a very detailed study commissioned by the U. S. Election Assistance Commission in 2006. Page 27 “In the model, three of the voter identification requirements have a statistically significant correlation with whether survey respondents said they had voted in 2004. That is, compared to states that require voters only to state their names, the requirement to sign one’s name, provide
a non-photo ID, or photo ID in the maximum requirements or affidavit in the minimum is associated with lower turnout.” I suspect the “mainstream” Heritage Foundation Report that you used as a reference is a response to this:
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_sta...
.
And this appears to be the Republican response - “H.R. 672: To terminate the Election Assistance Commission..”:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...

Mudsill,
Your words are empty. I backed mine up with evidence from the report I was citing that was brought to my attention by TCB. Perhaps you missed all the instances that I quoted from that report. It would appear you stopped reading when things got a bit too complex...you know, percentages and all. I'm not going to dumb my posts down, so I guess there's not really a whole lot that can be done for you.

TCB,
Your source did, however, address the profound infrequency of voter fraud:
"...the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law found that in 2004, voter fraud occurred 0.0009 percent of the time in the gubernatorial election in Washington and 0.00004 percent of the time in Ohio. They report that these percentages are akin to the likelihood of an American's being killed by lightning."
-at no point in the study do the authors dispute these findings.
***
"...the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that prosecutors in Milwaukee filed charges against 14 individuals for voter fraud in the 2004 election. Of the 14, 10 were felons accused of voting and four were accused of double voting. Prosecutors obtained five convic­tions."
-Only 5 convictions, and bear in mind the new voter ID law has no provision specifically targeting voting felons.
***
"...we are unaware of the extent to which voter identification laws would curb the type of voter fraud they are intended to prevent."
-I think that says it all right there.

TCB,
Are you denying the statements in your own "legitimate source"? As the report you cited states, comparing the differences in voting requirements in different states does nothing to prove how changes in voting requirements affect voter turnout over time within one state. Your source claims (and it is just a claim) that by manipulating statistics which they claim were already manipulated in another study, it can be proven that voter turnout is pretty much similar when you compare state to state regardless of the voting requirements. The authors of the study made it very clear that they did not investigate whether voter turnout went down within individual states when they passed stricter requirements.

It negates nothing. The source proves, statistically that voter ID requirements did not supress voting. Clearly you understand this. Maybe you dont.

This study does not question the wisconsin state law. The bottom line is that providing proof of who you are does not supress voters or voting.

What you reject this the fact the Wisconsin will be another state that requires Identification to vote. You can try to hide behind the state constitution but the law will pass and there is overwhelming support for the law.

TCB,
Your source negates itself.
For example,
"...using data from the November 2004 CPS to study the impact of voter identification requirements on voter turnout does have its limita­tions. The November 2004 CPS is a cross-sectional data set that does not allow social scientists to esti­mate the effect of changing voter identification requirements within states over time. Studies using the November CPS can only provide information on how voter patterns differed between states with dif­ferent voter identification requirements."
&
"It is important to note that in 2004, there were no states that had photo ID as a minimum requirement. All states that had a photo ID require­ment permitted voters who did not have such doc­umentation to present alternative forms of ID or sign an affidavit attesting to their identity."
***
Your "legitimate source" did a fine job of explaining exactly how its findings are irrelevant to the arguments being made against specific provisions of the new law here in present day WI that didn't exist in any law on the books in any state in 2004.

myview,

You are free to do your own research on the subject. But simply demagoguing the heritage organization as far right-which its not- as a cogent response to negate the impact of Identification on Voter participation is not a response-its a page 1 tactic of kill the messenger (and ignore the message).

Choose your source, examine their methodology and statistical analysis. The heritage piece disects voter participation and the impact of Identification and they concluded that there was no impact-statistically. SO those who claim that requiring IDs will result in supressing voters are wrong-the data demonstrates this fact.

To say that fraud is not an issue is a canard as there is plenty of fraud, primarily from felons voting (and they tend to vote left) but to say that 30 other states which require identification to vote have created a solution to a problem that did not exist is false. Also, another canard of the left is to claim that requiring proof of identification is tantamount to a poll tax is also false.

TCB - I am sorry but I went through your posts and I don't see what you are waiting on from me but I may have just plain missed it. Also do you want me to look at a specific article on Center for American Progress or just in general?

Thanks Walter

myview,

Waiting for your response. Maybe you should look at the center for american progress...

Specifically, what data or methodology is flawed?

I notice a few of people saying that a small amount of voter fraud is okay. How about a few murders? Rapes? Bank robberies? If there isn't very many does that make it okay?

If someone fails to return within the allotted time to show proper ID and therefore validate their provisional ballot, that is not disenfranchisement. That is called laziness. Regarding slowing down the line, perhaps there should be a separate line for those unprepared to show a valid ID so that the rest of us can move swiftly through the process.

The Heritage Foundation??????? This is the far right wing group that makes up Paul Ryan's kill Medicare charts also. I guess from now on you will accept any references provided by others....

Minan:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports...

legitimate source attached. Please feel free to produce a like source that negates this report.

If that "what if" happens it will be from a voter being unprepared, hardly disenfranchised.

Anyone who has worked at the polls and/or registered new voters or re-registered those who have moved know that some potential voters will come with FILES full of documents none of which can qualify as the acceptable ID. We can certainly anticipate many frustrated (and angry) voters under voter ID who will also, have loads of paperwork but no ID valid according to the new law. If nothing else, they will slow lines to a crawl while poll workers try to find a form of ID that qualifies, increase anger with the system, and, even if the person casts a provisional ballot, the likelihood they will return to show ID a few days later so their vote counts will be negligible. THAT is disenfranchisement.

TCB,
A Dept of Justice task force investigated the 2008 election in 12 counties statewide including Milwaukee and Dane. The investigations produced only 20 legitimate cases of voter fraud. 1300 "invalid" votes do not equal voter fraud. Your implication that "invalid" votes equal "illegal" votes holds no water. Malfunctioning ballot machines, mistakes made by poll workers, incorrectly filled out ballots, etc. are all going to happen during an election. They don't indicate a pervasive voter fraud problem. Neither do the 4600 surplus votes when compared against registration records. Mistakes can happen on the administrative end. Just look at Waukesha County. Voter fraud is a non-issue. It's only being used as an excuse to spend a bunch of money on the implementation of a law that has been passed by people with questionable motives.

frusion,
I too have returned an item to Best Buy without an ID. If you purchase an item with cash, you don't have to produce an ID. When you return that item, you don't have to produce an ID either. The receipt is all you need.

Yada must have flown under the radar on her return. Here's Best Buy's return policy:

Original Receipt and Valid Photo ID
Bring the original receipt as well as your valid photo ID for all exchanges, returns, price matches and warranty repair services. Best Buy accepts the following forms of photo identification:

U.S., Canadian or Mexican driver's license
U.S. state ID
Canadian province ID
U.S. military ID
Passport

"why do I worry about all of this current urgency for Voter ID legislation"
-
Only you know why you worry about it. It was hardly urgent though, it has been part of the legislatures agenda for about 10 years now. It was even approved multiple times before, only to be vetoed by the sitting governor.

Voter identification laws do not reduce turnout. Requiring identification at the polls would not be an excessive burden to voters either as identi­fication is required for many things that are consid­erably less important than voting.

What?!? Who is being "suppressed" ?? If nursing home residents are exempt, and free IDs will be issued to anyone requesting them for the purpose of voting, how is that "suppressing" anyone? Sure it's an extra step we all have to take to make sure we're eligible to vote, and maybe it isn't exactly convenient, but that's a far cry from suppression.

And why do I worry about all of this current urgency for Voter ID legislation (vote suppression law)? Maybe the Republicans like talk about their scheming a little too much in the open:
.
“Inside ALEC” article – June, 2009 the following article is published: The Challenge of Photo ID: Can Legislation Prevent Election Fraud without Disenfranchising Voters? In the article it describes the tactics that may work:
“ALEC’s model bill on this issue, the Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act requires qualified electors to present one form of identification that bears the name, address, and photograph of the voter or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the voter prior to receiving a ballot. A requirement that voters provide either photo ID or two alternative identification documents (instead of just one nonphoto ID like HAVA requires) is a strong step toward the prevention of fraud at the polls.
At the end of the article is: “To view ALEC’s Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, visit the model legislation page of the Public Safety & Elections Task Force at www.alec.org”
.
MITCH MCCONNELL on Oct. 25, 2010: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
.
Michelle Bachmann to CPAC on Feb 10, 2011:"The all-important must have for 2012 is making Barack Obama a one-term president."
.
FITZGERALD to Fox News on March 9, 2011: “Well if they flip the state senate, which is obviously their goal with eight recalls going on right now, they can take control of the labor unions. If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.”
.
WALKER to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 14, 2011: "Sometimes bipartisanship is not so good."
.
WALKER to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 14, 2011: “Just how much did weakening government workers' collective bargaining rights save the state of Wisconsin?” demanded Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
"That particular part doesn't save any," Walker replied. Earlier in his testimony, he told the committee the changes would save local governments in Wisconsin more than $700 million a year.

We may as well get this out there now.....my prediction is that this voter suppression law will be self justifying to those who want it so badly. In 2007 a Federal Election Assistance Commission study suggests that voter ID laws can hurt voter turn out, especially among minorities. When enough voters do not get to vote, the vote totals will go down because of it, more Republicans will be elected, and there will be a unified chorus of Republicans rejoicing and proclaiming that the difference in total votes is proof of outrageous and rampant Democrat voter fraud that we had without the law (I am sure you can find those talking points ready for distribution from ALEC – the unbiased Fox News source)

Walter,

1305 same day invalid votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. Yes, 1305 is a small percentage of t2.5 Million votes-however, I dont consider this a "non-issue". Conside the 600 vote difference between bush and gore in Florida, would you accept the outcome if you knew that 1300 votes were illegally cast? Sure you would-its a non issue to you. What about the 4600 additional votes cast than voters registered in 2008? Another non issue. A voter ID makes it more difficult for reps and dems to cheat.

TCB - Actually I love how voter suppression has become “preventing fraud”.

TCB,
Cases of confirmed voter fraud are minimal. It happens with such infrequency that it is a non-issue. The majority of those charged with voter fraud in this state are felons who have voted. There is no specific provision in the new voter ID law aimed at decreasing the occurrences of voting felons, the most often committed type of voter fraud. Voter fraud is a smoke screen. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that the millions of tax dollars that will have to be spent on the implementation of this new system are not worth the handful of cases of voter fraud especially since the law doesn't specifically target the type of voter fraud being committed most often.

myview and walter,

If fraud is widespread or easy to commit, absence of identification just tramples everyone's rights to fairly elect someone. I love how preventing fraud has become "voter suppression".

It is one thing for the state to mandate an ID from its voting citizens. It is a totally different matter when the federal government is simply setting a standard for elections to its offices.

MooShoo,
I think Retired's implication that he can determine the topic being debated within a post without actually reading the post is also in the running for most ridiculous comment.

Yes Walter, I kind of thought that......I will just wait for the yes/no answer, but as he/she is no longer reading my posts he/she will not know I am still waiting for the response I guess. I really didn't know that our Wisconsin constitution and the severity of the restrictions in the Wisconsin voter suppression law applied to the few other states and their Republican voter suppression laws but maybe I missed that one....
.
Yes / No

I expected that would be your response, truecitizen.

myviews2,
You must realize Retired can't answer a simple yes or no question. I think it's safe to assume that was a no. I was able to grasp that your question had nothing to do with other states. Retired's diversionary tactics are pretty transparent and tired at this point.

Whatever Walter...

myviews while you're at it why don't you list any voter suppression that has ever happened in any of the states that already have a voter ID law?

".....and I won't read it." I think you just did. But anyway, will we soon need a special license to vote also? I have no idea how far Republicans will push this to lock in a permanent majority. And as there have been 20 (maybe) voter violations out of 3,000,000 votes cast since 2008, if there are proven to be 21 or more cases of voter suppression caused by this Republican voter suppression law between now and 2014, will you then admit to everyone that it has indeed served its purpose - voter suppression? (This is a "yes" or "no" question)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! Did you hear that folks. Retired is threatening NOT to read posts. What ever will we do if we can't seek his approval anymore? I for one would be absolutely devastated.
Let's be clear. This law does nothing to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process as the only significant cases of voter fraud to have occurred with any kind of regularity have involved votes being cast by felons; an issue that is not addressed in the new voter ID law. Invidious? Yes. Even-handed? Not in the least.

Wow, if you are going to cite the state constitution why not provide all the details? Under section it is been edited/added in reference to a supreme court decision that clearly states; "Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself are not invidious." http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/wisc...

Also contained in the wisconsin constitution is a "right" to fish, hunt, trap, and take game; article 1 section 26. Yet there are still ID and licenses required that are not called out for in the constitution.

If you want to debate the topic based on the constitution and established law feel free, if on the other hand you just want to pretend how you are a victim I don't want to hear it and I won't read it.

FYI to poorrichard: Thanks for your post that caused me to look further and clarify the facts. While numerous states require voter ID. A small portion of those states require PHOTO ID. Sadly, Wisconsin voters and election officials will now have to deal with all the cost, time and frustration of being one of those requiring photo ID while it DOES disenfranchise many potential voters of ALL political persuasions.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=1...

TCB,
Please refer to myviews2's post. That is why voters will and should be shocked. The law has been used to infringe upon a right of the people.

This is not a story. The law is the law. Shocked voters? Please.

For all of you people who equate voting with showing an ID when you cash a check.....
.
The Wisconsin State Constitution, Article III Section 1-6 talks about the RIGHT to vote (suffrage) in our state. It does not mention showing a voter ID. Also, I do not see anywhere in the constitution that we are guaranteed the right to cash a check, buy a drink, buy cigarettes, get a refund at Best Buy, etc. Voting is called out to be a special right and is guaranteed to us in our constitution. It is insulting to compare our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote to the nonsensical reasons above. The false comparisons above are excuses used to justify denying others the right to vote. So come up with some other arguments please.
.
Today we honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to guarantee us our rights.

From the Government Accountability Board: Photo ID will NOT be required for upcoming recall elections. Spring 2012 primaries will be the first election in which photo ID will be required. Also, new or reinstated ID cards will be given free of charge to anyone requesting one for the purpose of voting.

Too bad...there's no reason whatsoever that anyone voting in this country should not be able to show an ID to do so. If they don't have one now, plan ahead, don't vote, or move.

Also truecitizen,
I never said a right was being removed. However, when I cannot exercise my right without producing an item (ID) that I am not legally obligated to carry, then my right is being infringed upon. Here is my scenario. When I voted for the first time after I had moved I proved my residence to the workers at my local polling place which happens to be at a school 5 doors away from my home. I walk there, so I'm typically not carrying my driver's license when I go to vote. I am not legally obligated to carry my license or any other form of ID when I walk around my neighborhood. Now, however, I have to produce identification for a poll worker, who I assume is not a sworn law officer, to be legally permitted to exercise my right to vote. I find it rather odd that a party known for their desire for less government would be so involved in forcing government interference with personal freedoms into law.

truecitizen,
I don't own a television, so as far as prime time tv is concerned I really have no idea what you are talking about. I just know my rights. By law I do not have to identify myself to a police officer unless probable cause exists for them to arrest me based on the reasonable belief that I have committed a crime. If I am no longer present at the scene of said hypothetical crime than that probable cause is used to obtain a warrant for my arrest. Probable cause is, in fact, what is necessary for an officer to legally demand that one identify themself. Identification of oneself is part of the personal search that PC would allow for. The officer can ask for a person's identification and one can willingly grant the officer's request if they so choose, but that is up to the person being asked. I never said PC was needed for an officer to "ask". I said it was necessary for them to "demand". As for the case of my burnt out headlight, I did receive a warning for my headlight. I had to replace it and take it to the police station within 2 weeks to confirm its repair. I was given no such warning (verbal or written) in regards to the incorrect address on my DL which I granted the officer permission to view to prove that I was legally permitted to operate a motor vehicle. The address on my DL remains incorrect to this day and yet no harm has befallen society due to this fact. I know it might seem hard to believe, but it's true, truecitizen.

Dear WalterRuether...."A law enforcement officer can't demand identification without PC or an actual warrant, yet we now allow poll workers to demand identification with a current address so we can exercise our right to vote."
*
-You are still allowed to excercise the right to vote, as it is just a verification. No rights are being removed here!!!!
-No, the 'P.C.' is not needed to ask for identification, let alone a full fledged warrant. Stop watching prime time TV, it melts your brain! By the way, did it occur to you maybe the officer covered your incorrect address and your head light issue, without making it sound like an order? You apparently recevied the message, so what is your point on that? I think he did well on your traffic stop, by reitterating the points, as well as checking the basics securities. But, your still making a somewhat loose association with that instance anyway.

GET OVER IT

Correction-12 States not 14

proartist-I believe its 14 states not 7-Also Ohio and Penn. are close to enacting ID leg. too.

yada

Maybe they knew you would protest and pound on the drums if they asked you to show ID.

The republicans are only doing this because they think it will help them but dont think so, how many in nursing homes that can not vote now used to vote republican? How many republicans have moved and dont have proper ID? It will be across the board not just the democrates will not be able to vote. Oh and saying college students. I bet lot of them are republican in the big league ivy schools.

EMMO46 - Also, just got back from bestbuy and made a return. Guess I don't look suspicious because I did not have to show any identification to anyone. I made my return and money was returned to me.

Eye witness account and complaint to the GAB Board demonstrating the issue is not due to attempted voter fraud but fundamental procedure problems.
ihttp://blogablebev.blogspot.com/2011/05/election-integrity_27.html?spref=fb

I just got home after a trip to Best Buy...you have to show a photo ID to get any refund...even for just a few dollars.
It's just about impossible to live in this country without ID.
Get used to it!

orange,
No, actually, you don't. I move all the time and never update my DL. There's no SWAT team waiting outside my house to apprehend me. In fact, I was recently pulled over because I had a head light out that I hadn't noticed. The officer asked me if my address was correct on my license. I told him it was not. He asked me for my current address. I told him, and that was that. He didn't give me a citation or a warning. He didn't even tell me that I should get my DL updated. Also, to show you how little you actually know orange, people that do not drive are not legally obligated to carry any form of government issued ID on their person. Your argument about people changing their ID doesn't make any sense when you don't even have to have one in the first place. Voting is a right, and as long as you can prove your residence there should be nothing stopping you from voting. A law enforcement officer can't demand identification without PC or an actual warrant, yet we now allow poll workers to demand identification with a current address so we can exercise our right to vote. I think there's something wrong with that on a very basic level.

Our law makers do not even know how this will work. I got two different answers to my question of will my ID work? I have a valid Drivers license but, it does not have my current address on it. I updated it on the DMV website as they want you to do when we moved three years ago. So by the the DMV my ID is valid. If my valid ID is not good for voting because of a wrong address printed on it will I have to pay for a new one? The DMV will only give you a new one if the old one is expired and mine is still good for 2yrs. This is such a joke IMO.

For Gods sake DEAL WITH IT !!!When ever you move you have to change your ID,for checks,bills,etc.Be responsible for once in your life !

retiredfed,
You've hit the nail on the head. The Republican party drones on and on and on about budgets and government spending. As they did with the "budget repair" bill, they've proven once again with this voter ID law that it's never been about saving the tax payers' money. It's all about some crooked and oppressive agenda based entirely on greed.

My concern is the start-up and annual cost to the taxpayers for a solution without a problem. I've seen estimates that start-up cost may exceed $7 Million dollars with annual cost there after of $2 million. Why the annual cost? It is simply because we are a mobile society. Each time someone moves they will have to update their ID. Since charging for the ID would amount to a poll tax the ID will have to be free. This will require longer time waiting in line at the DMV and possibly additional workers in some areas. Poster who say they show ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes are missing a big difference. The clerk for purchases of alcohol, cigarettes probably guns are only concerned about the birth date on the ID not the address. If you move prior with in the weeks leading up to an election you will need to update your ID over according to the law vote in your old neighborhood. That could be a problem if the person is then voting out of the district in which they currently live.

With no facts to stand on, the left invents victims (as in this article) and calls for proof of fraud.
The voter ID law makes sense and anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that.

donnaw said it very correct and simple as the first post. But how dare she tell it like it is or should be...
*
It always felt strange not showing an ID to vote.

This is stupid. There is no way you can convince me that the 'show your ID to vote' is a problem. The only people who will care are the illegal voters and maybe some of the bleeding hearts!
*
We have to show our ID's for everything! But voting somehow becomes not as important to do so? What!? By the way, they claim it will and has cost money, to implement the show your ID to vote-thing. How is this going to cost? A few seconds of inconvienence maybe?
*
I want people to acknowledge that every single point mentioned in this article against showing ID's and points mentioned throughout this push, have been excuses and are not valid arguements. ID theft? Come-on! What about your name already being listed on the district (ward) voting sheet!?
*
Liberals and 'New world order' types are afraid of realism. Yea great article Enriquez.

I agree with DwightKSchrute, which is why the legislation is a complete joke and wast of time. It is entirely unnecessary, which begs the question, why do Repubs want this so bad, especially in light of our current economic malaise?
*****
I think it is partially rooted in the belief that elections will be easier to control if they can put a "perceived" bottle neck in the process, and both "sides" have a tendency to try and put in rules and legislation that would keep them in power, hence the Republican tactic of gerrymandering. It still doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

proartist

Every county, including Dane, has issues as evidenced by the records in each county.
To continue to spew the inaccurate idea that Waukesha county was any more than lack of REPORTING the results to the AP, is disgusting. Obviously, this is a notion which the LOSING side intends to perpetuate to take this to the courts. If that happens, then we shall all see the fraud which occurs in Dane county exposed also.

Being so concerned about the dubious and red-herring issue of John-Q-Public pretending they're someone else on election day that Voter ID is even necessary does only one thing - it takes attention away from the far more likely and potential "organized" fraud perpetrated at the polls by possible "sloppy" record keeping, voting machine tampering, doctoring computer applications, no paper trail elections, etc. (i.e. Waukesha County).

SG

Thanks for sharing that. The public does not hear enough about things like that which have been occurring at the polls. If it would have been a republican poll worker, I bet we would have heard about voter suppression coming from the liberal voters.

Agreed - there's plenty of time to prepare before voting day - if you need to get your ID updated, get it taken care of. No big deal.

I agree Wislady. Unless you live under a rock you've heard about this. During the last election there was a sign at the check in table that said ID's not needed yet, but probably will be in the near future. I guess if people are really worried about this, they should spread the word to all their family and friends now so they are not caught off-guard next year.

This headline looks like it is from the Madison paper. Why would anyone be "shocked" when they have a year to get an ID? Everyone certainly has heard about the Voter ID, so I am sure they have also heard about the fact they have a year to get one.

It is my opinion that voter ID won't be a big deal nor will it make a great difference.
A whole lot of concern for nothing.
It is one more thing you have to up date when you move.

Neither side has much footing to stand on. Widespread voter fraud has never been proven in the state, and lower turnout and disenfranchisement hasn't happened in any of the states that already require ID to vote.

Nursing or retirement home residents as well as stalking victims and anyone who objects to having his or her photograph taken on religious grounds would be exempt.

Read more: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/a...

I think that you have gotten it exactly backwards.

The key word there is "charged" janesvillean.
It seems whenever the republicans gets elected it is because of voter fraud - when the democrats get elected it's a mandate.

well, i would agree with that.

The only people charged in the last election cycle with actual vote fraud happen to be Republicans. Speaks volumes, really. To combat a problem which only exists among their own kind, the rest of the entire state's citizens must endure hassle that hasn't been found necessary in the course of the history of Wisconsin.

do you really think so, proartist? i do worry that elderly folks that don't have an ID won't bother, but my hope is that they will prepare and get one. i hope!

honestly, i've always felt there should be some sort of system to verify a person's claim to identity at the polls. i don't like that it's going to cost the state an estimated $7 million to implement it though. it doesn't seem very timely. the law makes sense, however.

Only 7 - SEVEN - states in the whole country now REQUIRE a photo ID to vote. The alleged voter fraud (not suspected staff fraud as in Waukesha Co.'s recent Supreme Court election) that such laws claim to be designed to protect against is, at best, anecdotal. I'd like to meet just one poll worker who could witness and/or prove identity fraud by a voter. The new law is FAR more than simply having and showing a photo ID and it's consequences will be enormous discouraging voting that will be even more of a hassle than before - especially to those who already lean toward believing that their one vote doesn't matter. http://thirdcoastdigest.com/2011/05/vote...

Voting is a serious responsibility for adults who should be able to deal with the challenges of life. If it's important to you, you will take the necessary steps to ensure your eligibility.