Wisconsin Voter ID Law Upheld Four-to Three in Repudiation of Wisconsin Voting Guarantees

Appalling, corrupt decision dispels myth of impartial Court

The photo voter ID decision is posted on Wisconsin Supreme Court page.

The law remains unenforceable due to a federal injunction in two consolidated federal cases against the law.

Other major decisions issued today can be found here at Court page.

There can be no doubt that Wisconsin Republican Party's de facto four partisan justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are either removed from the reality of 100,000s of Wisconsin citizens or more likely just issued a corrupt partisan decision, salvaging the photo voter ID law.

Wrote Justice Patience Roggensack in the four-three opinion: "In the present case, we conclude that the burdens of time and inconvenience associated with obtaining Act 23-acceptable photo identification are not undue burdens on the right to vote and do not render the law invalid."

Wisconsin's Constitutional guarantee to vote is so expansive that in the 19th century, it took a Constitutional amendment to mandate registration of voters.

The point is that "state constitutions explicitly grant the right to vote to state citizens," as Joshua A. Douglas notes in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Thankfully Wisconsin's two U.S. attorneys (the top law enforcement officials in their respective districts) along with U.S. Attorney General Holder have defended the right to vote against this Republican voter obstruction effort.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson' dissent reads in part: "Today the court follows no James Madison--for whom Wisconsin's capital city is named--but rather Jim Crow," noted the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin in a statement..

Writes Abrahamson: "Act 23's photo identification requirements severely burden eligible voters without being narrowly tailored to achieve the state's compelling interests of reducing voter fraud and increasing voter confidence in the outcomes of elections.  For that reason, Act 23 is an unconstitutional election regulation, and I therefore respectfully dissent."

The rationale of Act 23 is to block as many Democratically leaning voters as possible from casting votes.

“Rather than blocking thousands of eligible citizens from voting, we should be working to ensure that our elections are free, fair and accessible to all eligible Wisconsin voters,” said Andrea Kaminski of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin in a statement.

This is a result-oriented decision that purposely misapplies a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Crawford v. Indiana and ignores the guarantee to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution, and the long history of case law recognizing this guarantee.

Never in Wisconsin judicial history has there been this type of corrupt decision that attacks the foundation of the state of Wisconsin as a political entity.