The recording contradicted Van Hollen's earlier claims that "there was no discussion with anybody involved in leadership with the Republican Party (or the McCain campaign for which Van Hollen served as Wisconsin co-chair) about this (2008 voting rule) lawsuit before it was brought."
In some many words, the corrupt Van Hollen is a liar, traits antithetical to the top state law enforcement official.
To no one's surprise Van Hollen's promised effort at voter obstruction was tossed out of court in an opinion that implicitly borders on ridicule.
Van Hollen - 2012
Van Hollen is again carrying water for the Republican Party in its current voter obstruction efforts. And Van Hollen has shopped his latest effort to halt the injunction against the unconstitutional 2011-12 voter obstruction law by now filing suit in the Waukesha-based District II Court of Appeals.
The Alice-in-Wonderland quality of Van Hollen's desperate arguments to obstruct voters is being repeated across the state, if not covered in local broadcast media.
Van Hollen claims he's worried about disenfranchising voters as he defends the GOP law, though the law's disenfranchising voters is the very reason the GOP law has been halted (stopped from taking effect by judicial injunctions) by two judges.
"Continued uncertainty surrounding the conduct of elections represents the potential for irreparable harm to electors and the franchise," said Van Hollen in a line used in one appellate district's case.
Earlier, in another district, Van Hollen said, "If, as we hope, the injunction is overturned before the election, those relying on the injunction may be left without an opportunity to obtain their IDs by the date of the election.”
So, Van Hollen admits the law is going to stop some legal, constitutionally qualified, and registered Wisconsin voters from voting if the injunction is halted (stayed).
And Van Hollen says the law needs to be made operative (injunction stayed) for voters' sake because Van Hollen is concerned the law will stop legal, constitutionally qualified, and registered Wisconsin voters from voting.
If this argument makes no sense to you, it's likely you live in the realm of reason—far from the world of Van Hollen, Scott Walker and the party of voter obstruction.
By the same logic, a political party can pass an unconstitutional law that takes away your rights
- Courts then rule the law an unconstitutional violation of your rights and stop it from taking effect
- The Party's attorney general then says he is going to appeal in favor of the law to appellate judges, creating uncertainty
- This uncertainty, he argues, mandates the appellate Courts to reinstate the law (staying injunctions) out of concern for the rights violated by the law
Crazy arguments aside, the apparent strategy of the Republican Party as Van Hollen makes one motion after another (and one appeal after another) is to amass as many adverse-to-the-GOP rulings as possible and hope the Supreme Court hears their case in time to stop Democratic-leaning voters from casting their votes in the 2012 November election, and as many elections as possible.
As Van Hollen's office continues its efforts, an April district court trial on the law looms.
Several attorneys have told me they cannot believe the voter obstruction law can survive the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the Court has recognized throughout Wisconsin history the voter protections of the Wisconsin Constitution against politicians' trying to stop voters from voting.
But as the four GOP partisans on the Supreme Court have committed one outrageous action after another, I am not as sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment