Two Voter ID Cases Headed to Supreme Court, as Two Fed Cases Remain in Deliberation

Updated - [Note: Mal Contends has cause to suspect that this site was hijacked.]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court announced today that the Wisconsin law forbidding registered, constitutional voters from voting without first presenting an narrowly crafted range of photo voter IDs under Wisconsin Act 23 has been have been accepted for oral arguments.

The Court granted two separate petitions for the state cases, one of which, Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker was due to be heard before a Wisconsin appellate court panel (District II) on December 17, 2013 challenging the permanent injunction order issued in July 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan.

The other case League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker (under a permanent injunction issued on March 12, 2012 by Judge Richard G. Niess after a trial was reversed by a Wisconsin appellate court panel (District IV) filed May 30, 2013).

The two federal cases, consolidated in the two-week federal trial that ended in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, last Friday are Frank v. Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and remain under deliberation.

The two Wisconsin state cases are ordered to be heard together at an indeterminate date, and heard simultaneously in the "interest of judicial economy."

The voter ID law will remained enjoined under the order of two state courts, and the federal judge may and likely will, enter another temporary injunction, on motions filed in March 2013 from the plaintiffs in Frank and League moving for injunctions, as well in the future while Judge Lynn Adelman deliberates his court's order and opinion.

I cannot imagine Judge Adelman's office writing what could be a potentially landmark opinion not just under the 14th and 24 Amendments, but also under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, until Adelman researched this case as though his life depended on it.

I don't care how brilliant Adelman and his clerk are, and they are; I would not expect an opinion until it's warm again in Wisconsin.

It would indeed be not at all surprising if the cases reach the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, and then the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, and not be ruled upon until June 2016, a presidential election year.

Wisconsin Voting Rights Trial Proceeds with After-trial Motions

We can expect a flood of motions, including perhaps a motion for a temporary restraining order of Wisconsin Act 23, Wisconsin Photo Voter ID law, pending Judge Lynn Adelman's formulation of his opinion and order.

The two cases, consolidated in the two-week federal trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, are Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128) and League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger (Case 2:12-cv-00185) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Two state cases are at the Wisconsin appellate courts.

• League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker permanent injunction issued on March 12, 2012 by Judge Richard G. Niess.
  Court of Appeals opinion reversing trial court decision (permanent injunction) filed May 30, 2013. (Appeal Number 2012AP000584 - AC)


• Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker - permanent injunction order issued on July 17, 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan

A state hearing before a Wisconsin appellate court panel challenging the permanent injunction order issued in July 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker is slated to be heard December 17 in the heavily right wing District II appellate court based in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Two Wisconsin appellate court judges in District II are heavily influenced by the Koch brothers and Wisconsin Republican ideology, and are not regarded as impartial jurists.

State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Wisconsin Romney-Ryan co-chair, claims Wisconsin's Voter ID law being halted from taking effect after being ruled unconstitutional caused Mitt Romney to lose Wisconsin.

Noted Ryan J. Reilly:

A state senator who served as co-chair of Mitt Romney's Wisconsin campaign suggested this week that the Republican presidential nominee would have carried the state if a voter ID law had been in place.

Obama won more than 52 percent of the vote in Wisconsin. His margin of victory over Romney was more than 200,000 votes.

This means there were over 200,000 in-person acts of voting fraud, impostors pretending to be other voters, according to Darling.

So, how is the weather on Planet Republican? Deluded and dishonest, as usual.

GOP New Theory on Voter Fraud Is Laughable

Update: Wisconsin Voter ID law struck down as unconstitutional, April, 2014.

Faced with overwhelming evidence of voter obstruction and zero cases of in-person voter fraud, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman did not laugh the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice attorneys out of court in the trial of two cases challenging the Photo Voter ID law when one DoJ attorney offered a new justification.

As Adelman drafts what will likely be a long, scholarly order and opinion that may become the basis of a landmark voting rights case, Adelman can be justifiably amused by the GOP's absurd argument.

Reports Marie Rohde and Andrew Harris in Bloomberg from Milwaukee yesterday: Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General Clayton Kawski said, "Picture IDs will deter voter impersonation fraud, if not prevent it." 

It has been established that there are zero cases of in-person voter fraud out of 10s of millions of votes cast in Wisconsin.

Now, attorney Kawski argues that all the trial testimony showing registered and constitutionally qualified Wisconsin citizens being prevented from voting—as even Wisconsin J.B. Van Hollen in 2012 has admitted will happen—said the rights of Wisconsin citizens to vote are trumped by the asserted power of the photo ID law to "deter" voter impersonation fraud, a crime which the Wisconsin Dept of Justice cannot produce even one case of being committed.

This does beg the questions that if in the absence (the voter ID law is enjoined in state court) of this new constitutional qualification, zero impersonation fraud occurred, why would the law now deter a crime that does not happen.

And if, as the GOP says, election integrity is the objective, does not the obstruction and prevention of registered, constitutionally qualified voters from voting subvert election integrity.

"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,” Attorney General Van Hollen said in March 2012. No opportunity to obtain their IDs by the date of the election, so citizens cannot vote, Van Hollen said clear as day.

See The Wisconsin Department of Justice Asks Court to Stay Order Enjoining Voter ID Law (Wisconsin Dept of Justice; March 9, 2012), and Wisc AG Admits Voter ID Law Will Stop Legal Voters from Voting.

Yes, costs and opportunity to obtain voters' restrictive GOP-crafted IDs as a new condition to vote are a problem under the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.

Wisconsin Voting Rights Trial Ends Today; GOP War on Voting Goes On

Update III: Three developments signal an eventual reversal of Crawford in two federal cases challenging Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law

Update II: "The pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, also seems troubled by partisan considerations in state election law," says Rick Hasen.

Update: Wisconsin GOP pushes new voting restrictions, and bizarre new legislation

While civil rights litigation proceeds in Wisconsin's four voting rights cases, anyone doubting the Republicans' motives need only pick up this morning's paper:

"Assembly Republicans used the final regular session day of the year Thursday to push their proposals that would make it more difficult to remove public officials from office, require photo identification at the polls and limit hours of in-person absentee voting." (Bauer. AP)

The federal trial of two federal Wisconsin voting rights cases is scheduled to conclude today at 5:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, but the all-out assault on voting has escalated.

Voting Rights Wars

The Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 created a modestly pro-voter United States Election Assistance Commission to help states run federal elections "to ... (address) improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election."

Central to this HAVA objective is helping legal voters to vote.

If you are a Republican and Tea Bagger, different story, the GOP's objective is to stop the vote, hence the four civil rights trials in Wisconsin.

Now, HAVA suggests a wide scope of acceptable IDs for in-person voting or registering, or a person obtaining a state-mandated ID.

Naturally, the Wisconsin Republican Party's corrupt Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, in 2008 invented out on thin air a mandate that HAVA demanded an exact data match in state bureaucracies as a new condition to vote.

Van Hollen is of course crazy, or actually lied.

"Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote," Judge Maryann Sumi said in dismissing Van Hollen's lawsuit, killing one effort to obstruct voters.

Since 2008, the GOP war on voting has accelerated, attacking early voting, demanding a narrow range of acceptable Photo Voter IDs as a new qualification to vote, among many other voter obstruction measures.

So as the two-week federal trial on Wisconsin's GOP Photo Voter ID comes to an end today, it is worth reviewing the narrow range of acceptable Photo Voter IDs the Republicans crafted prior to the GOP's Act 23 being enjoined (stopped from taking effect) in two state courts, and likely in federal court.

Acceptable-to-the-Republican-Party Photo Voter IDs in Wisconsin (no longer necessary as four civil rights trials remain under adjudication) are:

Acceptable Wisconsin Photo IDs
•A Wisconsin DoT-issued driver license
•A Wisconsin DoT-issued identification card
•An identification card issued by a U.S. uniformed service
• A U.S. passport
(Identifications above must be unexpired, or if expired, have expired after the date of the most recent general election.)
•A certificate of naturalization that was issued not earlier than two years before the date of an election at which it is presented
•An unexpired driving receipt issued by Wisconsin DoT.
•An unexpired identification card receipt issued by Wisconsin DoT.
•An identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin
•An unexpired identification card issued by a Wisconsin-accredited university or college that contains the following:
-- Date of Issuance
-- Signature of Student
-- Expiration date not later than two years after Date of Issuance 

An estimated 300,000 Wisconsin citizens lack these forms of ID, a new qualification to vote, narrowly crafted range of acceptable ID to obstruct as many voters as possible.

If the Republicans actually wanted to prevent in-person voting fraud as they endlessly claim, (note they cannot produce one case of in-person voter fraud in Wisconsin among the millions of votes cast), and not obstruct constitutionally qualified, registered voters, the Republicans could simply call for a new constitutional requirement and draft an expansive number of acceptable IDs as a new qualification to vote.

The GOP need look no further than the documents used for proof of residence to register to vote, as a guide to for their acclaimed Voter IDs:

All proof of residence documents must include the voter’s name and current address.

• A current and valid Wisconsin driver license or identification card
• Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit
• Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card
• A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
• A university, college, or technical college identification card (must include photo) ONLY if the
• voter provides a fee receipt dated within the last 9 months or the institution provides a certified
• housing list to the municipal clerk
• A gas, electric, or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing no earlier than 90 days before Election Day
• Bank statement
• Paycheck
• A check or other document issued by a unit of government
• An affidavit on public or private social service agency letterhead identifying a homeless voter and describing the individual’s residence for voting purposes
• Residential lease that is effective on date of registration. (Not valid if registering by mail)

Why aren't these acceptable to the GOP as voter IDs?

In the federal trial of two Wisconsin challenges, a temporary restraining order to stop the enforcement of Wisconsin Act 23 is probable.

Wisconsin Voting Rights Trial to Be Followed by State Appellate Hearing

Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II
Coming soon for Wisconsin Voter ID Law

The federal trial on the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law will be quickly followed by a state hearing before a Wisconsin appellate court panel challenging the permanent injunction order issued in July 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker on the same Photo Voter ID law, Act 23.

Wisconsin's voter photo ID law will be under adjudication in state and federal court simultaneously, with asserted violations of the federal and Wisconsin Constitutions.

Wisconsin's (the defendants in the trial) primary expert witness, M.V. Hood III of the University of Georgia, testified yesterday in what an informed observer characterized as not a very compelling rebuttal to the plaintiffs' social scientific experts' testimony last week.

Hood's testimony and the cross-examination by the voting rights plaintiffs are described as mostly inside social scientific baseball by one observer.

Michael Sandvick, the ex-Milwaukee, racist cop, is expected to testify Thursday or Friday for the defendants, though the thrust of Sandvick's expected testimony, the 2008 report on alleged voter fraud has been disavowed and discredited.

The trial, composed of two cases, is slated to end on Friday.
 ---

Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker - permanent injunction order issued on July 17, 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II will hear the NAACP case on December 17, 2013 before a three-judge panel, the composition of which is not yet public.

District II is dominated by heavily Republican Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha and Fond du Lac counties, and two of the judges appear to be under the sway of the Koch brothers.

Two of the four judges in District II, Paul F. Reilly and Mark D. Gundrum, are self-identified Republican partisans.

Judge Gundrum is a former state representative (R-New Berlin, 1999-2010) and was appointed by Scott Walker in 2011. Gundrum was elected in April 2012 to a six-year term.

As noted by Badger Democracy Judge Reilly may be more ideological than Gundrum:

Reilly is a known Republican. In the 2010 election, Reilly received the endorsement of the heavily Republican-conservative Wisconsin Family Action PAC, applauding his bringing "...respect for the law and the separation of powers to this key judicial position." The twisting of "separation of powers" meaning was key to conservatives in defending the overreach of Act 10 enactment, and their legal opining that courts could not intervene - even in light of constitutional challenges. According to Judicial Education Commission staff, Reilly "pushed hard" for Henry Butler's seminar on Law and Economics to be included in the 2009 program. A non-partisan judge, lobbying for a seminar created, and paid by Koch Industries in 1995, focusing on Friedman principles of "free-market economics." Butler moves from one university to the other with private funding. In 2009, the program was at Northwestern University. Now, the Law and Economics program resides at George Mason University - but always under the direction of Henry Butler.

Henry Butler is a known conservative and free market proponent-economist. Butler had a long affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute, having been the former director of the "Judicial Education Program." In 1992, Butler left George Mason University to accept the "Koch Distinguished Professor of Law and Economics" at the University of Kansas - funded entirely by a generous grant from the Koch Foundation. While at the U of K, Butler developed his course, with money, support, and influence on policy from the Kochs. In its formative stages, U of K received over $2 million dollars in private endowments from the Koch Foundation for the "Judicial Education" Institute (pgs. 18-20 of the document).

A report by Bruce Green prepared for the Koch Foundation in 2004 (pgs. 18-28 of the document) discloses that Butler, with Koch support and money, began developing, publicizing, and teaching a course with the intent of influencing state judicial opinion - with the express goal of gaining "free-market" supporting decisions at the all-important state level. Bruce A. Green at that time was the Stein Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law and the director of the Louis Stein Center of Law and Ethics. The original study conducted by Green, upon which this report was based, was based on the following report: Bruce A. Green, Ethics of Judicial Education: An Analysis of Private Charitable Gifts for Judicial Learning (Oct. 15, 1999). The report was prepared for three foundations-the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, and the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation, which retained the author to render, on a compensated basis, a report on the propriety of private foundation support for judicial education programs. ...

Henry Butler, heading the Law and Economics program now at George Mason, keeps the espoused principles grounded firmly in the conservative principles of an unrestrained, free market capitalism – without regulation getting in the way. The reading list for the program is indicative of that bias – many of the readings are required reading for the American Enterprise Institute. The video introduction of the program gives a synopsis of the mission – train judges to rule in favor of  in matters of particular interest to big business, monopolies, trusts – the Kochs of the world. ...

As an academic, he certainly has the ability to move in the right corporate/wealth sectors, and he belongs to the organizations which are able to attract money from those who wallow in it. He has received grants/fellowships from the Koch, Olin, Coor and Scaife-funded organisations, and he currently serves on the:

• Legal Advisory Council of the American Enterprise Institute’s Legal Center for the Public Interest, 
• Advisory Council of Atlantic Legal Foundation, 
• Legal Policy Advisory Board of the Washington Legal Foundation

Indeed, Butler ran as a Republican for Congress (Virginia) in 1992, and lost – despite a $1000 contribution from David Koch. Quietly, Koch political dominance has emerged over the past decade. According to the Wisconsin Judicial Education staffer, Judge Reilly had seen Butler deliver his program in Chicago – likely true, as Butler was at Northwestern at the time. Being a lifetime conservative ideologue, Reilly would have known the premise of the “Law and Economics” program, as well as Butler’s reputation and connections with Koch Industries. If Reilly was on a scouting mission to vet the program for presentation in Wisconsin, it is merely conjecture – Reilly three times refused comment on the subject, in requests for interviews.

When one considers the role ideologically conservative judges have played in the power grab in Wisconsin this past year – especially those in and influenced by Waukesha County politics; the genius and deviousness of the Koch plan is apparent. The influence of Henry Butler and Koch ideology on some justices cannot be overstated – and will continue for years to come, until this program is rejected by academia and universities as unilaterally political propaganda – not legal study, and Judges like Reilly are exposed for the political ideologues they are – not members of a non-partisan judiciary. Next time a Republican screams judicial partisanship about a “radical” Dane County Judge, ask them about Henry Butler and Koch Industries, and Paul Reilly.

Dane County Judge Flanagan found as fact after a 2012 trial that over 300,000 Wisconsin citizens lack GOP-mandated IDs necessary as a condition to vote under Act 23.

Scott Walker, the GOP Wisconsin Attorney General and Wisconsin Republicans argue that obtaining the approved type of photo ID is not an undue burden. The Koch brothers agree.

In the case, Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker, Judge Flanagan's order and opinion reads in part:

Conclusions of Law – Constitutionality of the Photo ID requirements of Act 23

This matter is being decided based upon Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This court need not and does not reach the claims asserting denial of substantive due process and equal protection in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The court hereby adopts the following conclusions of law
a.
The cost and the difficulty of obtaining documents necessary to apply for a DMV Photo ID is a significant burden upon the opportunity of Wisconsin citizens to vote.
b.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 impose a substantial burden upon a significant proportion of the Wisconsin citizens who are already registered to vote.
c.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 impose a substantial burden upon a significant proportion of the Wisconsin citizens who are not yet registered to vote but who are legally eligible to register.
d.
The cost and the difficulty of obtaining documents necessary to apply for a DMV Photo ID is a substantial burden which falls most heavily upon low income individuals.
e.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality.
f.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 include no back-up mechanism to examine or to verify the qualification of an eligible Wisconsin voter who, through indigency or other sufficient cause, appears to vote at an election without the required Photo ID
g.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 are unlikely to protect the electoral process.
h.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 are not narrowly tailored to achieve a goal of voter
verification.
i.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 constitute a substantial impairment of the right to vote guaranteed by Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution
j.
The Photo ID requirements of Act 23 are inconsistent with, and in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

GOP: In-person 'Voter Fraud' Is Real, Voter Obstruction Is Unreal

Update: Scott Ross:  Memo to Gov. Scott Walker and GOP legislators: Voters are not the enemy

A research report by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute (Pawasarat. June 2005) shows many racial minorities would be obstructed by a 2011 Wisconsin GOP-passed law "requiring (a photo ID) as a condition for voting."

Good, says the GOP.

In the Wisconsin Voting Rights trial slated to begin November 4, the Republican Party is attempting to legitimize its years-long project to disfranchise voters who vote the wrong way.

Lots of pre-trial motions over who will get to testify, including a racist ex-Milwaukee cop who really hates black folks casting votes against the Republican Party.

The nerve of those people in the most segregated metropolitan area in the United States.

Wisconsin GOP political operative, retired Milwaukee police detective Michael Sandvick, has been fighting a crime that never happened: Massive voter fraud that can only be stopped by the GOP's Photo Voter ID law, he says.

Sandvick has been chasing black voters in Milwaukee for years.

In fact, the Milwaukee cops set a special unit to drive around black neighborhoods (replete with a command center) until the unit was later disbanded.

Sandvick and his GOP colleagues are the frauds, and their crusade against non-GOP-voting Wisconsin citizens continues.

In 2004, the GOP made "allegations" of voter fraud, none of which (though proven false) could have been prevented by a photo voter ID anyway.

Facts are mere barriers to be overcome by Sandvick and GOP voter obstruction operatives in Wisconsin as they attempt to obstruct the African-American community in Milwaukee County, screaming 'voter fraud.'

Stopping Milwaukee County (urban types) is a project the GOP and Sandvick have no intention of giving up as they seek to introduce into evidence at the Wisconsin Voter ID trial a discredited, disavowed, unofficial, and partisan "Special Investigations Unit, Milwaukee Police Dept., Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004 General Election in the City of Milwaukee (2008)."

Writes Justin Levitt, counsel for the Brennen Center for Justice in trashing the unsanctioned report:

On February 26, 2008, the Milwaukee Police Department released a report on that election, with what appears to be a painstaking investigation of the facts, and policy recommendations offered with less care and disavowed by the Milwaukee Police Chief.[41]  The department's careful factual investigation primarily revealed administrative mistakes and, occasionally, negligence.[42]  It showed that much of what had originally been identified as potential fraud was in fact due to clerical error.[43]  It also uncovered several votes by potentially ineligible individuals, including some who were allegedly nonresidents, and some who had allegedly been rendered ineligible due to convictions.[44]  The report revealed only one potential vote that might have involved in-person impersonation fraud, with no documentation verifying that the vote in question was actually cast.[45]

So, according the 2008 report, there were zero in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted. But there were lots of innuendo and allegations, playing on racial prejudice that the GOP appeals to in its base.

Sandvick and the GOP should spend their time persuading people to vote Republican and not trying to obstruct people who have the right to vote in America any way they please.

The two cases to be heard in a federal court trial November 4 are:

• Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin


• League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger (Case 2:12-cv-00185), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The two cases have been consolidated for trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The two federal civil rights cases—Frank et al. v. Walker, and League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger—will challenge the Scott Walker administration and the Republican Party's Wisconsin photo voter ID law under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, in the League case.

In the Frank case,  plaintiff argue: "The photo ID law imposes a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as an unconstitutional poll tax; and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents."

New Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Propaganda on Suffrage

Update: A reader notes the discovery of phantom "additional qualifications" for voters in the Wisconsin Constitutions is consistent with GOP voter obstruction efforts in Kansas and Arizona where as the Washington Post notes:

NOTHING FRIGHTENS today’s Republican Party quite like the voters. Before the 2012 elections, GOP lawmakers in statehouses across the country tightened voter identification laws with one goal in common: to suppress turnout on Election Day among likely Democratic voters, especially minorities and the poor. It didn’t work.

Now, harking back to the days of Jim Crow, they are at it again. In Arizona and Kansas, GOP officials are moving to adopt a two-tiered voting system, the effect of which would be to disenfranchise thousands of voters. The ploy relies on requiring birth certificates, passports and other documents that establish proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in state and local elections. Such documents are not necessary to register for federal elections.

"Additional qualifications" to vote are not in the Wisconsin Constitution, but just the same are derived from the text, say the GOP and Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau in a new theory intended to disenfranchise African-Americans, college students, the poor, the elderly and homeless, disaffected veterans.

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau's (LRB) Bruce Hoesly, Revising Attorney/Code Editor, is spouting new Republican propaganda again.

Not content to parrot the disingenuous Republican line in its use of the declining-in-judicial-currency Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) decision, the LRB has launched more partisan spin in its new page on Wisconsin's Constitutional voting rights webpage, Suffrage.

The Republican Party propaganda states as settled law, the interpretation of a Wisconsin appellate court panel in May 2013 rejecting a facial challenge to the Wisconsin Photo Voter ID law, Act 23.

Wisconsin citizens' right to vote in jeopardy by the GOP's Act 23 face a law that:

• Remains enjoined
• Is under appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Is under challenge in two federal cases set for trial for November 4, 2013

The pro-voter and anti-voter advocates, the contending parties, will not even present intermediate appellate constitutional interpretations as settled law in Wisconsin Voter ID cases, but the GOP line is good enough for the LRB.

The LRB adopts GOP-friendly constitutional positions, though its reference in its new Suffrage annotation is anything but settled.

The annotation reads from a 1856 case:

Cothren, State ex rel. Knowlton v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308, contains a general rule for election law cases addressing constitutionality under a facial 'additional qualifications' challenge: whether the challenged requirement or procedure allows election officials 'to ascertain whether the person offering to vote possessed the qualifications required.' The legislature may impose such requirements or procedures because the legislature has a legitimate interest in preserving the integrity of elections. The general rule is made especially clear in the Cothren court's statement that the legislature may demand 'such proof' from potential voters 'as it deems requisite' for this purpose. League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Walker, 2013 WI App 77, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 12-0584.

To translate, the LRB is asserting that the government has the authority to enact laws that are additional constitutional qualifications that are not listed in Section 2 of ARTICLE III - SUFFRAGE of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The LRB is ignoring that the League case is under appeal in state and federal court, is enjoined; and anyway, Cothren, State ex rel. Knowlton v. Williams reads in part: "an act of the legislature which deprives a person of the right to vote, although he [sic] has every qualification which the constitution makes necessary, cannot be sustained."

Surly, 100,000s of qualified, registered voters not being able to present GOP-crafted IDs demonstrates an undue burden, just as GOP intends.

The GOP did not attempt to present a wide array of acceptable IDs that almost every citizen has (as some states do) when they narrowly crafted the range of IDs in 2011 to defeat the specter of in-person voter fraud, though the legislature cannot point to one case of in-person voter fraud out of millions of votes cast.

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) is not intended as a Republican Party propaganda outlet. But this is the new Wisconsin, agencies serve the Party and favored citizens should have an easier time when voting than non-favored.

The LRB page states, it is a "nonpartisan, professional, and confidential bill drafting, legal publishing, research and library services to the legislature and the public."

Reads a brief LRB history:

Since its establishment as the first professional, nonpartisan drafting and research services agency for a state legislature, the LRB has been committed to maintaining high standards of quality and to providing thorough and expeditious drafting and reference services for the Wisconsin State Legislature.

Each chief has seen the bureau through the changes that are inevitable with the passage of time. However, each has also maintained continuity with the past, holding fast to the traditions of quality, efficiency, and nonpartisanship that were established with the agency more than 100 years ago.

Not anymore.

Incidentally, Wisconsin appellate Justices Lundsten, Higginbotham, and Blanchard in the League opinion that Hoesly presents as settled law do not relate the text of Act 23 to the 100,000s of Wisconsin citizens like 86-year-old Ruthell Frank who would report to the polls as Frank has for over 60 years in Brokaw, Wisconsin and now be told she is not qualified to vote under Act 23, because she does not have the additional qualification of a driver's license or other GOP-prescribed ID.

Under this reasoning if the GOP legislature and GOP Governor pass a law that says photo IDs are now too easy to forge, in the interests of preserving the integrity of elections, a law stating a third party in your voting district has to attest to your identity and residence would survive a facial Wisconsin Constitutional challenge, though the hypothetical law would not be an amendment to Section 2 of ARTICLE III - SUFFRAGE of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The League opinion notes the following in a footnote as well:

In the same vein, given the League’s limited arguments in this case, we make note of, but see no reason to discuss further, the United States Supreme Court’s split opinion addressing a facial challenge, under the federal constitution, to an Indiana law requiring photo identification to vote.  See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 187, 189, 200 (2008).  Crawford involved allegations that the Indiana law “substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]; that it is neither a necessary nor appropriate method of avoiding election fraud; and that it will arbitrarily disenfranchise qualified voters who do not possess the required identification and will place an unjustified burden on those who cannot readily obtain such identification.”  Id. at 187.  A plurality of the Court concluded that the evidence in the record was insufficient “to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute.”  See id. at 189.

Hey, you note that Crawford was argued alleging a federal constitutional violation, not a Wisconsin constitutional violation, so what again is its relevancy?

Ask around. Justices Lundsten, Higginbotham, and Blanchard blew this opinion in its hard-right decision (apparently written by a GOP law clerk) that is political and one in which the justices apparently self-consciously take the GOP line in an effort to write an opinion that the four GOP Wisconsin Supreme Court justices can use, if they have no sense of shame.

Thankfully, federal court may now offer protection for Wisconsin voters from the GOP voter obstruction project, and perhaps Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128), and Jones et al v. Deininger et al (Case 2:12-cv-00185) will become landmark federal voting rights cases.

Fed Appellate Judge Recants: We Blew Voter ID Opinion

Authoring Judge of Voter ID case recants

Republican Party Voter Obstruction Project Could Be Heading for Trainwreck

Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1981-present) is a sitting justice who writes a column for Slate Magazine and regularly intones on the abundant rightwing, judicial idiocies of our time.

In an amazing, audacious and perhaps bizarre interview featuring Posner and Mike Sacks (Host/Producer with HuffPost Live) first reported by Rick Hasen, Posner has recanted his 2007 decision in Crawford heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and authored by Posner, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

 "The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes," Judge Richard Posner wrote in his majority opinion in 2007, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. (Nos. 07-21 and 07-25) (2008).

Posner has now publicly recanted his opinion.

The Brad Blog reports, "This is nothing less than remarkable. The 7th circuit court judge who wrote the majority opinion in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case, has now admitted he got it wrong! 'I think we did not have enough information," Judge Richard Posner said in remarks today. "If the lawyers had provided us with a lot of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case would have been decided differently.'"

Posner made his comments in an interview with Mike Sacks discussing jurisprudence and Posner's new book, Reflections on Judging (Harvard University Press, 2013).

Writes Hasen:

In response to Mike Sacks’s questions about whether Judge Posner and the 7th circuit got it wrong in Crawford case, the one upholding Indiana’s tough voter id law against constitutional challenge (Posner says):

'Yes. Absolutely. And the problem is that there hadn’t been that much activity with voter identification. And … maybe we should have been more imaginative… we…. weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disfranchise people entitled to vote. There was a dissenting judge, Judge Evans, since deceased, and I think he is right. But at the time I thought what we were doing was right. It is interesting that the majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens, who is very liberal, more liberal than I was or am ... But I think we did not have enough information. And of course it illustrates the basic problem that I emphasize in book. We judges and lawyers, we don’t know enough about the subject matters that we regulate, right? And that if the lawyers had provided us with a lot of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case would have been decided differently.'

Here’s the quote from Posner’s book, which Mike Sacks flashed on the screen: 'I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion (affirmed by the Supreme Court} upholding Indiana’s requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo id—a law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention.'

The repercussions for protecting voter rights of Americans against the Republican and Tea Party are stunning.

The whole nationwide Republican Party project of obstructing the voting of Americans could be in dire jeopardy.

This is because Crawford is the landmark case that, for example, the Wisconsin DoJ, Scott Walker and even the historically (and formerly) non-partisan Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (and every other GOP state hack) have hyped (erroneously) as the controlling legal case on challenges to the GOP's photo voter-obstruction statutes.

The Crawford case was challenged as unconstitutional on its face, so no evidence was presented demonstrating how voters were obstructed.

This lack of the evidence will not be a problem in Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, two federal challenges to the state Voter ID law are set to heard on November 4: Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128), (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin) and Jones et al v. Deininger et al (Case 2:12-cv-00185), (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

There is a mountain of social scientific evidence accumulated in Wisconsin Courts in state cases and by the federal plaintiffs demonstrating how voters were intended by this GOP legislation and the practice of the legislation to be obstructed from voting.

Look for a federal decision finding that Act 23, Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law, is discriminatory and not supported by valid neutral justifications.

Mike Sacks interview with Judge Richard A. Posner:

Altering of online Wisconsin Constitution; Is LRB Going GOP?

Updated - New LRB page on Suffrage.

Updated - I was surprised to find in the online Wisconsin Constitution's webpage on Suffrage (Section III, aka voting) changes have been made to support the GOP's Wisconsin Attorney General-GOP's position on photo voter ID.

Weird to find annotations in the Constitution to a federal voting rights case directly refuting the clear language on the Wisconsin Constitution.

So, this morning I spoke with Bruce Hoesly, Revising Attorney/Code Editor at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB).

Hoesly says he updates the website for the Wisconsin Constitution.

Hoesly has worked at the LRB for 22 years, he said.

Hoesly appeared not very well-versed on the Wisconsin Constitution this morning on a phone call.

Background

The following misleading sentence has been added to the online Wisconsin Constitution's Voting Section, III: "An Indiana statute requiring citizens voting in person on election day, or casting a ballot in person at the office of the circuit court clerk prior to election day, to present photo identification issued by the government did not violate constitutional standards. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2008)." (emphasis mine) [The webpage reads "Current through May 21, 2013" at the bottom of the page.]

This appears a naked display on what used to be a non-political webpage on the Wisconsin Constitution maintained under the auspices of the Wisconsin Reference Bureau (LRB). 

Hoesly

So I asked the LRB's attorney Hoesly why the page has been altered to reflect AG Van Hollen's ludicrous spin that Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (a federal case relying on a reading of the U.S. Constitution) should be added under the online Wisconsin Constitution's text, with its broad guarantee to vote vis a vis the United States Constitution.

Van Hollen's office had issued a press release dated July 19, 2012 reading in part: "Voter identification helps ensure election integrity.  It is a measure that protects the right to vote. And similar election integrity reforms have been upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court."

After Hoesly denied anything partisan is afoot, I asked Hoesly should he not adopt some "rigor" into adding editorial comment under the Wisconsin Constitution's text on voting rights, in light of his inserted language about Crawford.

Hoesly said, "no," adding, "I don't believe it (editing the text of online Wisconsin Constitution) deserves more rigor."

I asked Hoesly, the relevancy of Artcile III of the Wisconsin Constitution to the federal case, Crawford.

Hoesly replied, "I'm not an expert on Article III (of the Wisconsin Constitution)," adding that he thought of the Crawford language "that it might be useful to readers."

I pointed out to Hoesly that Crawford relies on the U.S. Constitution while the ruling currently enjoining Wisconsin photo voter ID relies on the Wisconsin Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote.

Hoesly's response is babble.

So, why the Republican spin in Hoesly's language on a page that is supposed to be the online text of Wisconsin Constitution? 

Corruption is my guess. 

The GOP-added sentence to Suffrage is misleading for several reasons. Here again is a summary:

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) is a federal case based upon a facial challenge (a law asserted to be illegal or unconstitutional on its face) to an Indiana state law obstructing voting.  
Crawford relied upon the weak warrant to vote under the United States Constitution, not the Wisconsin Constitution. And the Crawford case included no social scientific evidence as was presented in
Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker (Case 11CV5492) (2012).

2. The Wisconsin Constitution—the topic of the Wisconsin Constitution's webpage—includes a strong, affirmative right to vote under ARTICLE III, Suffrage vis a vis the United States Constitution. (Hence, U.S. Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison's (D-MN) Right to Vote Amendment, explicitly guaranteeing Americans' right to vote in the U.S. Constitution." Hey, Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-White People), still waiting for your support of the Right to Vote Amendment in light of your unshakable commitment of voting rights.

3. The Wisconsin Constitution explicitly specifies the type of laws that may be enacted to regulate elections, enumerating the specific conditions under which the qualifications of voters (electors) may be changed by the enactment of laws under Section 2, and only Section 2. Anything outside this scope and the legislature has to change the Wisconsin Constitution.

This GOP pretension that the federal case, Crawford, controls Wisconsin state voting rights case is a disingenuous political talking point, hawked by Wisconsin's GOP Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen and other GOP politicos.

As Judge David T. Flanagan writes in striking down the GOP Photo Voter ID bill in July 2012 in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker (Case 11CV5492):

The Crawford decision has very little application to the dispute now before this Court, however, for three primary reasons. First, this case is founded up the Wiscosnin Constitution which expressly guarantees the right to vote, while Crawford was based upon the U.S. Constitution which offers no such guarantee. Second, the Indiana law is less rigid than Act 23, and noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, offered alternative voting opportunities to voters who lacked the Photo ID. Finally, Crawford came to the Court based upon a flawed factual record, lacking the substantial evidence that has been offered by the plaintiffs in this action. This case is based on a claim that Act 23 violates the Wisconsin Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. The people of Wisconsin may choose to assure to themselves rights under their own constitution that differ or exceed those guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, State v. Doe, 78 Wis 2d 161, 172 (1977). The question of what is permitted and what is protected by the Wisconsin Constitution is the issue before this court and that issue was not before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Crawford case.

This is not the first time Van Hollen and the Republican Party have lied about federal law and federal case law in order to obstruct voting rights on the state level.

See Van Hollen's and the GOP 2008 efforts at voter suppression in which Van Hollen's similarly ridiculous effort was tossed out of court.

In the 2008 case, (J B Van Hollen vs. Government Accountability Board (GAB) et al) Van Hollen tried to create a new Wisconsin constitutional qualification to vote by fiat: A perfect match of the spelling of voters' names in state bureaucracies, after assuring fellow Republicans he would commence this frivolous legal action at the 2008 Republican National Convention held in Minneapolis, as first reported by WisPolitics in a scoop that includes audio.

Several former judges serving on the GAB Board would have failed Van Hollen's new constitutional standard proposed in 2008, as this GOP effort drew wide ridicule.

"Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote," Judge Maryann Sumi said in dismissing Van Hollen's lawsuit that tried to use the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as a voter suppression tool.

Our corrupt attorney general, up for reelection on 2014, will not give up his Party's project of denying the voting rights of Wisconsin citizens; and neither will the Republican Party now holding sway in the gerrymandered state legislature, and it would appear in the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB). 

Non-GOP-fixed Section III on the Wisconsin Constitution on Suffrage - Voting 

GOP Legislature Altered Wisconsin Constitution Webpage; Changes Mislead on Voting Rights

Updated - New LRB page on Suffrage.

See the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB)'s response.

The Wisconsin Legislature Reference Bureau webpage on Suffrage, voting, has been changed while under GOP control since 2011.

The following misleading sentence has been added: "An Indiana statute requiring citizens voting in person on election day, or casting a ballot in person at the office of the circuit court clerk prior to election day, to present photo identification issued by the government did not violate constitutional standards. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2008)."

This is the first time such a naked display of partisanship has been on display on what used to be a non-political webpage on the Wisconsin Constitution maintained under the auspices of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB). The URL is:  http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/wiscon/_12 .

Any Wisconsin document, record, history and archives should be examined to ensure that they have not been cleansed by the Republicans in Wisconsin government in the manner of a Soviet-based authoritarian regime. 

I have been told of other cleansing efforts that I cannot reveal for fear of GOP recrimination against whistle blowers holding appointed positions.

The GOP-added sentence to the Wisconsin Legislature's webpage on Suffrage is misleading for several reasons. 

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) is a federal case based upon a facial challenge (a law asserted to be illegal or unconstitutional on its face) to an Indiana state law obstructing voting.  

Crawford relied upon the weak warrant to vote under the United States Constitution, not the Wisconsin Constitution. And the Crawford case included no social scientific evidence as was presented in
Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker (Case 11CV5492) (2012).

2. The Wisconsin Constitution—the topic of the Wisconsin Constitution's webpage—includes a strong, affirmative right to vote under ARTICLE III, Suffrage vis a vis the United States Constitution. (Hence, U.S. Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison's (D-MN) Right to Vote Amendment, explicitly guaranteeing Americans' right to vote in the U.S. Constitution." Hey, Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-White People), still waiting for your support of the Right to Vote Amendment in light of your unshakable commitment of voting rights.

3. The Wisconsin Constitution explicitly specifies the type of laws that may be enacted to regulate elections, enumerating the specific conditions under which the qualifications of voters (electors) may be changed by the enactment of laws under Section 2, and only Section 2. Anything outside this scope and the legislature has to change the Wisconsin Constitution.

This GOP pretension that the federal case, Crawford, controls Wisconsin state voting rights case is a disingenuous political talking point, hawked by Wisconsin's GOP Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen and other GOP politicos.

As Judge David T. Flanagan writes in striking down the GOP Photo Voter ID bill in July 2012 in Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker (Case 11CV5492):

The Crawford decision has very little application to the dispute now before this Court, however, for three primary reasons. First, this case is founded up the Wiscosnin Constitution which expressly guarantees the right to vote, while Crawford was based upon the U.S. Constitution which offers no such guarantee. Second, the Indiana law is less rigid than Act 23, and noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, offered alternative voting opportunities to voters who lacked the Photo ID. Finally, Crawford came to the Court based upon a flawed factual record, lacking the substantial evidence that has been offered by the plaintiffs in this action. This case is based on a claim that Act 23 violates the Wisconsin Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. The people of Wisconsin may choose to assure to themselves rights under their own constitution that differ or exceed those guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, State v. Doe, 78 Wis 2d 161, 172 (1977). The question of what is permitted and what is protected by the Wisconsin Constitution is the issue before this court and that issue was not before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Crawford case.

This is not the first time Van Hollen and the Republican Party have lied about federal law and federal case law in order to obstruct voting rights on the state level.

See Van Hollen's and the GOP 2008 efforts at voter suppression in which Van Hollen's similarly ridiculous effort was tossed out of court.

In the 2008 case, (J B Van Hollen vs. Government Accountability Board (GAB) et al) Van Hollen tried to create a new Wisconsin constitutional qualification to vote by fiat: A perfect match of the spelling of voters' names in state bureaucracies, after assuring fellow Republicans he would commence this frivolous legal action at the 2008 Republican National Convention held in Minneapolis, as first reported by WisPolitics in a scoop that includes audio.

Several former judges serving on the GAB Board would have failed Van Hollen's new constitutional standard proposed in 2008, as this GOP effort drew wide ridicule.

"Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote," Judge Maryann Sumi said in dismissing Van Hollen's lawsuit that tried to use the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as a voter suppression tool.

Our corrupt attorney general, up for reelection on 2014, will not give up his Party's project of denying the voting rights of Wisconsin citizens; and neither will the Republican Party now holding sway in the gerrymandered state legislature.

New GOP Assualt on Voting in Wisconsin Began Mere Days After 2012 Elections, Records Reveal

The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are
qualified electors, under the Wisconsin Constitution.

Sweeping Effort to Suppress Wisconsin Voters Began Two Days After the 2012 Election. Never before has Wisconsin seen
this sustained attacked on voting.

One Wisconsin Now Uncovers Heavy Influence by Top Assembly Leader; Milwaukee Singled Out for Early Voting Restrictions. Milwaukee blacks have long been a target for obstruction, intimidation as the GOP views African-Americans as not full members of society.

You won't see any Wisconsin Republicans renounce this voter obstruction effort and say, 'My God, what are we doing?'

It would be appropriate for every Wisconsin newspaper to advocate the political disqualification of every Republican candidate to the legislature and governor's office who works to prevent the right to vote belonging to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors.

This Republican efforts to erect barriers to vote are an assault against the foundation of the state of Wisconsin's democracy, and every citizen.

From One Wisconsin Now
Madison -- A review of legislative drafting records by One Wisconsin Now has uncovered that Republicans began work to attack state election laws mere days after the November 2012 election and that an omnibus bill on the legislative fast track, introduced by Rep. Jeff Stone, was developed under the close supervision of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.

One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross commented, “The Republicans were so obsessed that they failed to win Wisconsin’s Electoral College votes for the seventh election in a row that they started drafting this voter suppression scheme before all the votes in the November 2012 election were counted.”

The legislation, Assembly Bill 225 (AB 225), was announced late in the afternoon on the Friday before Memorial Day and is being rushed through the legislative process while much of the public and media attention is focused on the biennial budget. Among the provisions of the bill are:

• Re-imposition of a voter ID requirement found to be Unconstitutional by lower courts and still subject of state and federal lawsuits
• Measures making it easier for ballots cast by legal voters to be discounted due to minor clerical errors;
• Restrictions on early voting hours and essentially eliminate weekend voting in large urban areas;
• Repeal of the state policy that allows voters to use electronic copies of qualifying documents to verify their residency;
• Increased partisanship of election regulators at the state Government Accountability Board and in local polling places; and
• Repeal of campaign transparency requirements and repeal of the 100 year-old-plus ban on corporate contributions.

 “This bill is a massive, across the board assault on voting in Wisconsin. Government ought to be protecting and expanding our right to vote,” said Ross. “But Gov. Walker and top Republican leaders are going in the opposite direction, making it harder and less convenient to vote and easier to toss out votes cast by legal voters.”

Drafting records indicate that work began on one of the more egregious measures included in the package -- limits on early voting hours that effectively ban weekend voting in larger municipalities and eliminate nonpartisan “souls to the polls” drives by churches --- on November 8th 2012, just two days after the November 2012 general election.

A handwritten note associated with the draft of the provisions noted that Milwaukee allowed early voting on weekend and the intent of the bill was to eliminate it.

The work on the omnibus assault on voting was carefully overseen by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’ office. Despite the drafting request being made by Assembly Campaigns and Elections chair Rep. Bernier and being introduced by Rep. Jeff Stone, Vos was given explicit permission to review preliminary drafts and correspondence between requesters and drafters. In addition, there is extensive correspondence between Vos staff and legislative attorneys drafting the language of the bill, giving directions and making modifications to the legislation.

Ross concluded, “The real fraud in Wisconsin elections today is politicians like Gov. Walker, Speaker Vos and their partisan underlings manipulating the rules to try to give themselves an unfair political advantage. And Assembly Bill 225 is exhibit A in the case against them.”

No Voter ID Remains Law of Land; Pro-democracy Forces Get No Set-back from Narrow Ruling

Blacks voting in rural Alabama - They just won't quit, to the
chagrin and horror of Scott Walker and the Republican Party.
Today, Alabama Republicans says they salute
Scott Walker's Alabama Values.

No cause for alarm for pro-democracy forces in the Wisconsin voter ID appellate court's narrowly tailored decision. This GOP voter obstruction effort remains unconstitutional, pending the big show-down at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin 4th District Court of Appeals in Madison issued a unanimous decision finding the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin's challenge to the Republican voter ID law, Wisconsin Act 23,  is not unconstitutional on its face, as had been ruled in 2012 by a circuit judge.

The League's challenge is a heavy legal assault against the statute—a "facial challenge" in which the state statute as written on its face is asserted to be unconstitutional, opposed to how the statute would be applied in practice.

"In sum, the League has presented no basis to conclude that it has met its heavy burden in this facial constitutional challenge," reads the appellate decision in part. This appellate decision does not affect another circuit court injunction preventing the voter ID act from taking effect. Two other federal legal challenges have been filed against the Wisconsin voter ID act as well.

In federal court, the landmark case, Crawford et al. v. Marion County (Indiana) Election Board et al. (no. 07–21, 2008), is regarded as controlling other voter ID cases wherein federal challenges have been made to other state Republican laws seen as unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

This is significant because the plaintiffs in Crawford challenged a Indiana law (similar to Wisconsin's) as unconstitutional on its face under the weak United State Constitution, which has no affirmative right to vote for American citizens in its text, as opposed to the Wisconsin Constitution.

Wisconsin is better for voters because of the Wisconsin Constitution. A facial challenge to GOP voter obstruction statutes may fail in federal court, but ought not to fail in Wisconsin courts.

As for the merits of the appellate decision, consider a voter who is:

• constitutionally qualified to vote
• registered to vote
• has been voting for years

Under the 2011 GOP's voter ID law, a registered, constitutionally qualified voter goes the polls to vote, vested with this franchise to vote, walks to the polling table as she or he has for years, but under the GOP's voter ID law (were it not legally prevented from taking effect under Judge David Flanagan's order) is now stopped from voting by the GOP's new statutory condition to cast a vote, if she or he does not possess the GOP-prescribed, new voter ID.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (1981-2006) warned recently against politicians in judicial robes issuing partisan decisions solely to benefit secret interests, subverting the rule of law.

Justice O'Conner may with equal justice have also warned against the obtuse, uncomprehending Wisconsin appellate Justices Lundsten, Higginbotham, and Blanchard who evidently do not relate the text of Act 23 to the 100,000s of Wisconsin citizens like 85-year-old Ruthell Frank who would report to the polls as she has for over 60 years in Brokaw, Wisconsin and now be told she is not qualified to vote under Act 23, because she does not have the additional qualification of a driver's license or other GOP-prescribed ID.

Why the three appellate justices fail to comprehend that Act 23 is not on it face "sufficiently narrow to avoid needless and significant impairment of the right to vote," as Judge David Flanagan writes in striking down the statute in a different case on Act 23, is mystifying to those who regard the Wisconsin Constitution as a strong protector of the sovereign people of Wisconsin [as noted in Wis. Const, art III, section 1] Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71: (August 1875)] Wisc. - Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Even the Wisconsin Republican Party's corrupt Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (Republican) who begged that the voter ID bill be reinstated before the 2012 presidential election has admitted the voter ID act will obstruct voters, warning in March 2012 that "those relying on the injunction (stopping the Voter ID Act from taking effect) may be left without an opportunity to obtain their IDs by the date of the election."

As noted here, the GOP and Van Hollen make a habit of trying to obstruct Wisconsin voters.

In 2008, Van Hollen after secretly consulting with the GOP proposed an exact match of voters' names in bureacracies' databases is a new condition to voting, a ridiculous argument that was tossed out of court never to see the light of court again after the 2008 presidential election.

Jurists contacted over the course of the years since 2011 have agreed with statements made on background, "I don't think they [the four Republican justices] will vote to uphold the [voter ID] law. It would be too blatant a partisan display."

I am not as sure as I was a year ago that I agree with this statement.