Wisconsin passes highly restrictive voter ID bill

@Black Humor: That doesn't change the fact that he said it. Maybe he was refering to himself ironicly?

@Ratix: Heh "federal aide". That probably shouldn't be so funny.

@Game Chainsaw: Try living here. Although I feel safe, since my state was one of the few to see Democratic gains.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Ah wisconsin. Where the tea Party has proven its either the most singly malicious or incompetent voting bloc ever.

The point was that he didn't actually say that. In fact, this is one of the more famous examples of quotes misattributed to Winston Churchill. See the sources listed on WikiQuotes for further details.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

Yeah!

First of all, realize this very important point. Voting in the US is a privilege, not a right (See: Bush V Gore). Hence why it can be taken away (such as for being a felon) and minors can not vote (Rights are inherit to a human and protected by The Constitution, not "given").

Two: Democrats don't give a shit about "voter rights". They are Democrats and are behaving like democrats (note the capitalization).

Three: I need a photo ID to register to vote!? How restrictive!

edited 13th May '11 7:15:03 AM by deuxhero

Deux, if the only thing you got out of that list was 'I need a photo id to vote, that sounds perfectly reasonable,' then you weren't reading very closely.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

I read it throughly. It's "Democrats want to neuter the law, amendment fails" x~20 with a bunch of stuff that doesn't belong in the bill as well. Also, list is clearly not from a neutral source ("Voter suppression bill")

@The Jackal "This really is making a mockery of democracy"

Good thing we are a Republic (looks up what the founders though of democracy). Democracy makes a mockery of itself without any help.

edited 13th May '11 7:25:19 AM by deuxhero

"Dems offer amendment to clarify what it means to have the name on your ID "conform" to the name on the voter rolls; i.e. John F Smith in the ID versus John Smith on the voter rolls; amendment fails"

"Dems offer an amendment to make it clear on the DMV form that they can get the ID free of charge; amendment fails."

"Dems offer amendment to clarify that if license is suspended revoked it is still valid for the purposes of voting; amendment fails."

There's no reason to oppose these amendments unless you're purely trying to minimize votes; clarity of communication does not 'neuter' anything in this bill, it only makes the prerequisites more understandable so that people can conform to them and exercise their ability to vote should they be able to do so.

"Dems offer amendment to address absurdity in the law: you need photo ID to get a birth certificate AND you need a birth certificate to get a photo ID; amendment fails"

"Dems offer amendment to make it illegal to bribe someone with anything of value in exchange for signing a recall petition. Kensoha bartender was caught on tape trading shots for signatures. Amendment fails."

I shouldn't have to explain why these two are pure bullshit.

There are disturbing trends in the rest that regard disenfranchisement of the homeless, of the handicapped, of the religious, of those who have had driving problems, of students, and of anyone who lives in a region where the relevant offices aren't readily available during off-work hours. If that's your America, Deux, where these people don't get to vote because they don't 'deserve' it, then fuck your America.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

You're misreading it, mate. What all that is, is the Dems going "Hey, this doesn't sound right! You shouldn't have to have a pay to renew your driver's license in order to vote (among other things)! Lets amend the law to fix that." and then the amendment didn't go through.

edited 13th May '11 7:43:43 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

"law should clarify" "law should clarify" "law should clarify"=fluff, uneeded.

"I shouldn't have to explain why these two are pure bullshit. "

These are things for separate bills, not amendments (How is a recall petition related to this AT ALL?), if they are even what they say they are (again: non neutral source), I learned years ago never to take a politician's or journalist's word for what a law does (I doubt it would be anywhere near as clean cut if I read the actual amendments).

edited 13th May '11 7:53:49 AM by deuxhero

Anyone who's dealt with red tape for any length of time knows that clear communication is not just optional, it is essential to have a time-efficient and cost-efficient bureaucracy. How much more important for something like voting, which is quite possibly the single most meaningful action anyone will take in their lives?

You're welcome to provide conflicting sources if you like, but I find it insultingly arrogant of you to dismiss something based on presuppositions of bias alone.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

"An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof."

And I pointed out wording that provides enough proof to view it as non-neutral.

edited 13th May '11 8:23:19 AM by deuxhero

Voting is absolutely a right. It says so in the US Constitution.

It's a right that has a few limitations, of course: you need to be old enough and you can't be a serving felon, but otherwise it's a right.

edited 13th May '11 8:26:22 AM by Linhasxoc

Don't forget the poll tax one. Which is arguably violated if photo ids require a fee of any sort.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Going back a few posts:

I'll just leave this here.

Bush V Gore what part wasn't clear? It addresses that (Various states give a "right" to vote and it refers to that).

Pool tax is a possible argument with possible merit, but not one opponents are using.

The issue of it being an effective poll tax IS being used in many places with these kinds of laws being passed.

Isn't it the least bit suspicious that State Election Laws can be used to manipulate the course of FEDERAL elections?

Also, neuter the law? What is the law trying to do? "Prevent voter fraud?" THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH VOTER FRAUD! If by "Neuter the Law" you mean "prevent the law from doing what the passers want it to do-prevent new voters from voting democrat," then yeah-Dems are trying to neuter the law.

edited 13th May '11 8:59:13 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

"You need a voter ID to vote" to "You need a voter ID to vote In Name Only, in practice you can without one" (which many of them fall into) is a neutrering.

@deuxhero > First of all, realize this very important point. Voting in the US is a privilege, not a right (See: Bush V Gore). Hence why it can be taken away (such as for being a felon) and minors can not vote (Rights are inherit to a human and protected by The Constitution, not "given").

Um...let's look at the Constitution.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Sir, I believe the United States Constitution is rather clear on this matter.

> Two: Democrats don't give a shit about "voter rights". They are Democrats and are behaving like democrats (note the capitalization).

Huh?

> Three: I need a photo ID to register to vote!? How restrictive!

Well, if you need to pay money to get that photo ID, y halo thar Amendment 24.

Heck, if the photo ID site has metered parking I can even argue against that!

> Good thing we are a Republic (looks up what the founders though of democracy). Democracy makes a mockery of itself without any help.

Newsflash: We're a democratic republic. A republic has representatives of people making laws. A democracy elects its officials by popular vote. We elect, by popular vote, representatives among us to make laws.

> Bush V Gore what part wasn't clear? It addresses that (Various states give a "right" to vote and it refers to that).

1. You're telling me that one extremely controversial court decision negates well over a century of constitutional tradition?
2. Y halo thar Dred Scott v. Sanford.
3. Even if you have a point with Bush v. Gore, the ability to vote is still considered a right, even when granted by states, as you just pointed out. It is not a privilege.

edited 13th May '11 9:06:19 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

deux, you are completely missing the point. The amendments presented have to do with making it easier to vote despite the law. The only possible amendment that would have neutered it was the one to allow for signing an affidavit. Other than that, there is no reason to implement the bill without those amendments, such as the amendment to make it possible to get a licence at all in certain counties. Wisconsin's DM Vs are massively disproportionately clustered around Milwaukee county. Most of them are open only 1 day per month, and those are the closest ones for much of the rural population.

Also, the amendment that was pointed out about the recall and the amendment about county clerks was because they wanted to address the ACTUAL possible source of fraud in the state: Out of the whole voting population of Wisconsin, only 9 instances of fraud occurred, and 6 of those was due to felons voting. that leaves 3 out of millions of perfectly legal votes. The true possible source of the fraud was when Kathy Nickolaus "found" 14000 votes in Waukesha county, which ended up giving 7000 to the incumbent in a recent and highly close election. She has a history of this, used to work for said incumbent, and committed crimes FOR said incumbent. Further, there has been a huge amount of ruckus recently about a "budget repair" bill, which includes non-budgetary stuff. The point of this non-budgetary stuff is to save money, they say.

So why introduce a bill that will cost Millions of dollars?

This bill is the equivalent of buying a chrome muffler for a car when you notice that its gotten 1 decibel louder, while in the mean time, the freaking spark plugs are so rusted out that only one works. Its expensive, needless, and DOES NOT CORRECT ANY PROBLEMS.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Congratulations, you successfully dodged the question-the question being "What does the bill do."

"other than that, there is no reason to implement the bill without those amendments"

Yeah, screw clean bills! Who needs laws to be about only a single subject anyways?

Also: "Don't need a photo id for voting by mail" and "Able to vote without proof of residency"

"Congratulations, you successfully dodged the question-the question being "What does the bill do." "

When was this asked?

edited 13th May '11 9:10:14 AM by deuxhero

Deux, my point is that the bill IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT SEVERAL SUBJECTS. Would you rather have a ludicrously unclear bill? Or a bill that was a bit longer that ACTUALLY EXPLAINED WHAT IT MEANS?

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Post 67.

edited 13th May '11 9:11:09 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

The clarification is unneeded and only serves to fluff (and again, I need the amendment text, not a proven baised source's summary). I'd imagine the state has established what an ID "conforming" means previously.

"What is the law trying to do? "Prevent voter fraud?" THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH VOTER FRAUD! [[color:blue:[citation needed] ]]"

Wait, no [[color:blue:text]] tag on the forums?

edited 13th May '11 9:13:31 AM by deuxhero