Ruthelle Frank, Civil Rights Worker, Dies at 89

Ruthelle Regina Frank, (August 21, 1927 - June 4, 2017)

Ruthelle Frank lived in the tiny village of Brokaw in northern Wisconsin. She led a life as a public servant and a public intellectual.

Ms. Frank died this week at 89, (Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune).

The last six years Ruthelle Frank has been the co-plaintiff in the major federal voting rights case, Frank v. Walker, still being litigated at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, (Wisconsin Public Radio, ACLU,).

On March 9, 2012, I had the pleasure to speak with Ruthelle Frank by phone in Brokaw, (Mal Contends), following rightwing attacks against Dane County Judge David Flanagan and Dane County Judge Richard G. Niess after the judges had ordered injunctions of Wisconsin Republicans' photo voter ID law, litigated simultaneously in state court, (The Capital Times, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker, Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker,).

Said Frank, in a previously published piece in Mal Contends:

'I have been living here 83 years; everybody knows me. We [Brokaw] have 194 people. I maybe could have voted last month illegally,' Frank said. 'I wasn't allowed to vote legally though, because I didn't have a valid Wisconsin ID.'
 
'My motto is: You don't use what you have, you lose it. But I have never seen treatment like this, what is going on,' said Frank. 'I'm fighting for everyone who has lost his [voting] rights. This isn't right, it's just plain crazy. Just because we're old, and can't get around like we're young doesn't mean we're stupid and can't think and shouldn't be able to vote.'

Asked about GOP criticism of Dane County Judge David Flanagan's temporary injunction barring implementation of the voter ID law while having signed a recall Walker petition, Frank said, 'as far as I'm concerned, he has an opinion about Scott Walker and he [Flanagan] has to live his own life, you're not supposed to speak what you believe in?'

Frank whose story was broken by Robert Mentzer last year in the Wausau Daily Herald, sang the praises of old-school journalism, singling out Mentzer.

'I called up Bob Mentzer of the Wausau Daily Herald and told him what was going on; and he just said, 'he's driving over,'' said Frank.

As the state and federal law suits against voter ID laws across the country continue, Frank said she is optimistic and ready for the fight.

'We're going to make it, we're are not going to crawl under a rock. I'm talked to people from California, Washington and even had a relative in Florida call me after seeing me on [Rachel Maddow]. Keep writing and thank you for spreading the story,' Frank said.

Ruthelle Frank, (1927-2017), lived her life and fought for her rights and those of her fellow Wisconsinites with whom Ms. Frank felt she gave a common effort.

Republicans Got What They Want in Wisc DMV Clerks Deciding Who Votes; Fight's Not Over

Thank you Ruthelle Frank and Eddie Lee Holloway Jr.
for sticking up for our rights in 2011 and beyond, (ACLU)

Wisconsin Republicans frustrated, confused and blocked voters: Mission Accomplished

Wisconsin is better than North Carolina in voting rights, but that's nothing to brag about.

For the some 300,000 registered voters without a Republican-approved voting ID, Wisconsin voting rights activists face a situation where DMV clerks, intrepid students of the Constitution, are making value decisions about who gets to vote.

The result and Republican Party objective is voter confusion, frustration and obstruction.

Writes EPWisco this weekend: "We hope DMV now following correct rules - u should be able to get ID w/whatever docs u have. Let us and @VoteRiders @votermolly know [if] u can't[.]"

From February 2015, consider the unthinkable state of affairs (also seen from 2011) we face today, we did not get here by accident:

[from 2015] If Republicans and Scott Walker get their way, [they did], DMV clerks will make the decision on whether 10,000s of Wisconsin citizens get to vote, exercising the clerks' "discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner." [Frank v. Walker, p.36]

Election law expert, Rick Hasen [in 2015], says Wisconsin voting right activists make a persuasive case for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Wisconsin photo voter ID case, Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Barland.

Hasen notes the timing and disposition of the Wisconsin voting rights case facing the U.S. presidential elections next year, and the five-to-five split of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pitting Judge Easterbrook's opinion with Judge Richard Posner's.

"This case comes to the Court with an extensive trial record, an exhaustive district court decision, and a pair of diametrically opposed Seventh Circuit opinions by Judges Easterbrook and Posner." [p.11 of 2015 Reply Brief]

If the Supreme Court does not grant cert, the GOP-passed bill signed into law by Scott Walker would become effective.

From Wisconsin voting rights activists' Reply Brief filed [in 2015]:

...The district court identified other problems with the saving construction [by the Wisconsin Supreme Court]. A voter applying for photo ID “must still provide ‘[w]hatever documentation is available which states the person’s name and date of birth,’ and then the [DMV] administrator, in his or her discretion, may accept or reject ‘such extraordinary proof of name and date of birth.’” App. 197a (quoting Wis. Admin. Code § Trans. 102.15(3)(b), (c)). To guide DMV clerks, the Wisconsin Supreme Court offered this cryptic instruction: ‘the administrator, or his or her designee, shall exercise his or her discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner.’” Id. (quoting NAAC, 851 N.W.2d at 279). It is unthinkable that the right to vote could depend on the “constitutionally sufficient” exercise of discretion by a DMV clerk. See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 (1965) (voting rights “cannot be obliterated by the use of laws ... which leave the voting fate of a citizen to the passing whim or impulse of an individual registrar”).  [p. 14]

Repulsive work by Republicans and bureaucrats.

Seventh Circuit Refuses En Banc in Both Wisc Voting Rights Cases; No More Changes Unless SCOTUS Intervenes

Voting rights win, Republicans lose.

Rick Hasen has the story. Order denying Wisconsin petition is at Election Law.

Twenty-seven days until voting begins, the United States Supreme Court is unlikely to consider application, emergency petition, if Republicans in the Wisconsin Dept of Justice decide to file.

Wisc DoJ Files Emergency Appeal to Permit Obstruction Laws for November Election

Wisconsin Republicans defend fig leafs, "efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," (Judge Richard Posner, Frank v. Walker; On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc, Oct. 10, 2014), (Brad Friedman, (Mal Contends)

"Wisconsin’s voter ID law is part of 2011 Wis. Act 23, enacted the year after Wisconsin Republicans won the governorship and majorities in both houses of the legislature. Act 23 was the first of eight laws enacted over the next four years that transformed Wisconsin’s election system," writes Judge James D. Peterson in his sweeping July 29, 2016 opinion, (p. 2, One Wisconsin Now, Inc. v. Thomsen).

The Wisconsin election system transformation enacted by Wisconsin Republicans, and only Republicans, working to protect their elected offices by disenfranchising voters, is being attacked by voting rights workers and allied forces in federal court litigating for the foundational rights of Wisconsin citizens.

Two cases, Frank v. Walker and One Wisconsin Now. Inc. v. Thomsen, are being litigated at a torrential pace, comprising the most voluminous and grave Constitutional policymaking on voting rights Wisconsin has even seen, as the Sept 22 start date of Nov. Presidential Election voting approaches. As election law expert, Rick Hasen, noted about a 2014 flurry of Wisconsin litigation, "You don’t impose new requirements in the weeks before an election without adequate preparation which runs the serious risk of disenfranchising voters," referring the Purcell Principle.

Wisconsin's 2014 and 2012 general elections were heavily litigated but not like this year.

The Republican-enacted appellate unit at the Wisc Dept. of Justice—working torridly as its offices to defend voter obstruction laws—has developed into a legal war room for Republican voting obstruction efforts, (Mal Contends).

The latest news is the Wisconsin Dept of Justice's Emergency Appeal in One Wisconsin Now, Inc. v. Thomsen regarding what an Aug 12 DoJ press release calls "election logistics."

[Note: A judicial injunction is a court order. In the two Wisconsin voting rights cases, injunction may order a revision to, or a halting of enforcement of a law, or order the implementation of actions by officials regarding a law. A motion to stay is a request to halt proceedings and orders of a case. A motion to vacate is a request to revise, or overturn, (or lift) a judgement of a court.]

Here's is a link to the DoJ Aug 12 press release, and the DoJ Aug 12 Motion to Stay Judge Peterson's Aug 11 order denying a different DoJ motion to stay Peterson's July 29 injunction and his order and judgement.

For an excellent history of Wisconsin's voting war, see Ernest Canning's latest.
---
As noted at Mal in 2014, Ohio State Prof. Ned Foley raised critical Due Process Clause questions presented by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's stay of Judge Lynn Adelman's April 2014 injunction (April 29, 2014) of Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law.

The Seventh Circuit's panel's changed the rules on Sept. 12 after 1,000s of residents had already cast their absentee ballots raising "severe due process claims," Foley offered after being reached by phone then.

Writes Foley in his article: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been properly interpreted to bar changes in the rules for counting ballots after they have been cast."

Here's the link to Foley's piece (brought to wide attention by Rick Hasen) that brought to the fore Due Process Clause concerns in 2014.

Now in 2016 we are 31 days out from the Sept 22 start of the Election Day balloting-mailing process, Sept 22 being the 47-day mark from Election Day mandated by Wisconsin statute, at which "official absentee ballot to each elector who has requested a ballot by mail" will be sent a ballot by Wisconsin election officials.

Wisconsin Voter ID Status Unclear as Frank Easterbrook Takes Refuge in Fact-free Cocoon

Judge Lynn Adelman's injunction against the Republican-enacted photo-voter ID law has been stayed, or halted by three Republican-appointed appellate judges in the voting rights case, Frank v. Walker.

Judge Frank Easterbrook's order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reads in part, "Because the district court has not attempted to distinguish genuine difficulties of  the kind our opinion mentioned, 819  F.3d  at  385–86, or any other variety of substantial  obstacle to voting, from any given voter’s  unwillingness to make the effort that the Supreme Court has held that a state can require, there is  a substantial likelihood that the injunction will be reversed on appeal," (Wisconsin DoJ document).

With Judge James Peterson's injunction in One Wisconsin Institute, inc v. Thomsen, against a wide range of Republican obstruction laws, including voter ID, still in place, the question is, will voter ID be in place for the presidential election in November?

Writes Peterson, "I conclude that the IDPP, [ID Petition Process], is unconstitutional and needs to be reformed or replaced. Because time is short with the fall elections approaching, I will issue an injunction targeted to the constitutional deficiencies that I identify."

Even election law experts can only offer speculation on what happens next.

Leading Wisconsin writers on the voting rights battle, Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, can only find sources to offer this in their coverage: "Voters should keep following the news — the rules could change again between now and the Nov. 8 presidential election."

What is clear is that the Republican Party of Wisconsin and voting rights activists are at cross purposes.

The most likely next legal moves include the State of Wisconsin enacting last-minute administrative rules changing the ID Petition Process, (IDPP), to make the rules acceptable to Judge Peterson to save the voter ID legal regime in One Wisconsin, and an emergency appeal to the full court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by voting rights attorneys in Frank v. Walker.

From the Washington Post, (Zapotosky):

Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that as many as 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin lack the right photo ID, although he acknowledged that not all of those people would vote and some probably could obtain documentation without much trouble. The ACLU had sued over the law.

As to whether requiring ID could tip the election in favor of the Republicans who support the law, Ho said: 'Obviously, the people behind these laws think it can help them. Whether or not it can, from our perspective, it really doesn’t matter. We’re just trying to make sure everyone can vote.'

As noted here, on September 22, 47 days from Election Day on November 8, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), will begin mailing absentee ballots to local election clerks who in turn mail ballots to several classes of voters, per Wisconsin Statute, including permanent absentee voters, (Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)).

Wisconsin voters should receive absentee ballots around September 29.

It is a judicial doctrine, the Purcell Principle, that federal courts will not change election laws after the voting process has begun. So, the clock is ticking.

Still, the Republican voter obstruction project is continuing in other ways:

During Election Day yesterday, Republican election inspectors, began a tactical voter suppression action that resulted in this voter being denied my right to vote for 35 minutes. This voter suppression action apparently includes use of outright hostility, mocking, and prevention of voting by Republican election inspectors who are now individually named by the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

Similar reports, including one incident involving the mother of a Fitchburg, Wisconsin alder, were fielded by elected office holders who say the tactical suppression program may spell trouble for voters on November 8, Election Day.

The obstruction incident at Fitchburg Fire Station, Number 2 yesterday, will be investigated by the Dane County District Attorney's office and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, upon receipt of complaints and relevant reports, top officials of the two agencies said yesterday after being reached by phone.

Voting Rights Winning Against Republicans, Still Desperate to Stop Voting

Voting rights rabble-rousers have really done it.

Voting rights activists, including attorneys from the U.S. Dept of Justice, won major victories against Republican efforts to stop voters in North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Ohio and Kansas.

Richard L. Hasan has a piece in the New York Times today. Concludes Hasan:

The struggle is not over, but this wave of court decisions means that more eligible voters should get a chance to register to vote and cast a ballot in November. These votes will help elect a president whose choices for judges and justices will very likely seal the fate of voting rights (and much more) for a generation.

Not over, indeed.

The Republican Wisconsin Dept. of Justice filed an Emergency Stay motion yesterday with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Frank v. Walker, (Wisconsin Dept of Justice).

This is a last-ditch effort to stop as many blacks, Latinos, college students, elderly folks, and other undesirables as possible from voting.

The state DoJ uses its new partisan, appellate unit in federal litigation, (Mal Contends).

What's the big emergency?

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit calendar has no scheduled August or October oral argument days, so if Republicans are going to stop voters in time for Election Day, (voting will begin in late September), there is a rush.

On September 22, 47 days from Election Day on November 8, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), will begin mailing absentee ballots to local election clerks who in turn mail ballots to several classes of voters, per Wisconsin Statute, including permanent absentee voters, (Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)).

Wisconsin voters should receive absentee ballots around September 29.

It is a judicial doctrine, the Purcell Principle, that federal courts will not change election laws after the voting process has begun.

Fortunately, the battle for voting rights is turning in favor of voters against Republican governments working to stop our most fundamental of rights.

Wisconsin AG Fights Pro-Voting Rights Decision; GOP Unlikely to Prevail in Appellate Court

High-priority communication from Wisconsin Elections Commission
to local Election Clerks alerts officials to make available affidavit
for November 8 general election. Memo follows federal judge's
preliminary injunction of Wisconsin's voter obstruction law

Republicans Face Uphill Climb to Stop Voters in Appellate Court

A major Wisconsin voting rights victory in federal court this week has been appealed by the Republican-led Wisconsin Dept. of Justice.

The case is Frank v. Walker, (MoritzLaw). The case will be heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit where the law of the case reads in part, the "right to vote is personal and is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily," (p. 4, Frank v. Walker; April 12, 2016), (Canning, The Brad Blog).

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman's decision this week halts Wisconsin's Republican-enacted voter obstruction law designed to stop non-Republican-voting citizens from casting votes, (Mal Contends).

Adelman has issued a temporary injunction, (halting), of the law until Wisconsin allows citizens without approved photo voter ID to vote after signing an affidavit attesting to the difficulty in attaining voter IDs.

The next election in which Adelman's opinion will be in force is the November 8 general election.

The difficulty for 1,000s of registered voters in obtaining IDs has been found as fact in the 2013 federal trial, Frank v, Walker, decided by Judge Adelman in April 2014.

Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel released a statement on July 19, reading: "We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will decide the next course of action after Wisconsin Department of Justice attorneys have had time to fully review and analyze the court's decision," (WPR).

It did not take Republicans long to review, analyze and decide to appeal the voting rights victory.

The Wisconsin Republicans are moving for an expedited hearing on their motion to stay, (stop), Adelman's injunction mandating the option of an affidavit to protect the right to vote.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which will hear the appeal will likely deny the Republican motions.

In April 2106, the Seventh Circuit's Judge Frank Easterbrook remanded Frank v. Walker to Adelman's district court writing in part, "Plaintiffs’ approach is potentially sound if even a single person eligible to vote is unable to get acceptable photo ID with reasonable effort. The right to vote is personal and  is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily," (p. 4, Frank v. Walker; April 2016).

Republicans Hostile to Wisconsin Population

Part of Republican political strategy in Wisconsin is to harass the minority and college-age populations so frequently disfavored segments of the citizenry move out of Wisconsin.

Repulbican efforts to defend each voter obstruction law in state and federal court amount to 100s of hours of legal work for a partisan end to destroy the liberties of disfavored Wisconsin citizens.

Republican Press Release in Frank v. Walker

The Republican press release dated July 22 is reproduced below:

MADISON, WI – Today, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, appealed the preliminary injunction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on July 19, 2016, requiring the State to adopt an affidavit exception to Wisconsin’s voter identification law for the November 2016 election. Along with the appeal, DOJ also filed a motion in district court seeking a stay and moved the court to expedite its decision on its motion seeking the stay.

Under Wisconsin law, any eligible voter who applies for a free photo ID at the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will receive such an ID for voting purposes within six days, which will be automatically renewed through the November election. Even after November, each eligible voter will continue to have a free photo ID unless the DMV makes a finding of fraud, ineligibility, or refusal to respond to repeated DMV inquires for six months, or the voter specifically requests cancellation of the DMV process. Under this robust process, any eligible Wisconsin voter can obtain a free photo ID for voting purposes using reasonable efforts, making the district court’s affidavit procedure entirely unnecessary.

In its motion seeking a stay, DOJ explained that the district court’s decision is contrary to binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The district court’s affidavit procedure creates a loophole in Wisconsin’s voter ID law, incorrectly informing voters that they can vote without a photo ID, even if they have not made any reasonable efforts to obtain such an ID. For instance, under the court’s ruling, if voters explain on their affidavit that they simply did not want to go to the DMV, those voters could still vote, despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has rejected that specific argument. As the Supreme Court has held: “making a trip to the [D]MV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph” is not a substantial burden on the right to vote. Rather, this is an entirely reasonable, modest requirement, which is properly designed to ensure the integrity of elections and public confidence in the fairness of the result.

Fed Judge Gives Wisconsin Voting Rights Win, Hits Republican Voter Obstruction Project

Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw, Wisconsin
fights for her right to vote against Scott Walker
and Republican efforts to obstruct non-GOP
voting Wisconsin citizens in Frank v. Walker

A prominent tool used by Wisconsin Republicans to obstruct non-Republicans from voting was held unconstitutional yesterday by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman.

Adelman held citizens' right to vote conditioned on obtaining and presenting photo voter IDs needs to include the option of a signed affidavit for voters unable to get approved identification that accords to the narrowly drawn range of acceptable IDs, (Stern, Slate), (NYT), (Ferral, The Capital Times).

The case is Frank v. Walker, (MoritzLaw).

This is the second time a court has ordered major revisions to Wisconsin Act 23 (2011), passed by Republicans and only Republicans as a means of protecting elected Republicans from the voters' will.

The Republican-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in July 2014, holding that to pass state Constitutional muster, the state of Wisconsin must offer free photo voter IDs, in an activist opinion written to save the unconstitutional law, (Mal Contends),(Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Judge Adelman is a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

He ruled yesterday the voter obstruction law is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution, violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Writes Adelman: "... I conclude that the plaintiffs are very likely to succeed on their claim that Act 23 is unconstitutional as applied to those who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort, and that the appropriate remedy is to allow those voters to present an affidavit in lieu of photo identification," (p. 36), referencing his previous ruling, in which Adelman found Wisconisn Act 23 (2011) unconstitutional in April 2104 (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Another voting rights case against Wisconsin voter obstruction laws, One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol, continues in the Western District of Wisconsin.

Republican voting obstruction efforts continue. Since 2011 Wisconsin Republicans have made some 34 changes to Wisconsin election law to keep Republicans in political power, (Ferral, The Capital Times)

The Republican-dominated Wisconsin Dept. of Justice issued a statement saying the Dept. is "disappointed" in the ruling. Of course, they are.

Republicans Escalate War on Voting Rights

Why Is It So Hard to Vote In America and What Can We Do
to Fix It - Brennan Center for Justice

Having eviscerated critical provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2103, (Shelby County v. Holder, Cornell), Republicans across the nation are targeting voting rights through state legislation.

This is a continuation of the years-long multi-state, Republican-led attack on voting.

Federal litigation against two swing states' anti-voting rights laws show the Republican efforts to make voting as difficult as possible, akin to navigating the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) if a voter can find a local office open.

Ohio 

"For the second time in two weeks, a judge in Ohio has struck down provisions of the state’s voting laws. Federal district court Judge Algenon Marbley said two laws passed in 2014 violated the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection with laws that made it too easy for provisional ballots to be thrown out for 'trivial' errors," come reports from Ohio (see Graham, The Atlantic).

Wisconsin

From Wisconsin: U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected Republicans' motion (made through the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice), to halt judicial consideration of the restoration of voting rights for citizens who have difficulty obtaining the Republican-crafted range of acceptable voter IDs, another Republican-imposed pre-condition to vote (WBAY-TV News, AP).

Republican suppression strategy on voting rights is to pass laws making voting as difficult as possible for disfavored classes of voters, then oppose and seek to stall all litigation seeking to secure voting rights for the targeted classes of voting.

This is what is being addressed in the federal cases, Ruthelle Frank, et al. v. Scott Walker and One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol.

The Republican strategy comes as Scott Walker and legislative Republicans have changed the administrative law process of rule-making into a Republican-Party political operation.

An effective method to stop Republican-disfavored Wisconsin voters is to make obtaining necessary voting IDs conditioned on the whim of the state Department of Motor Vehicles personnel.

In Wisconsin, residents who literally die waiting on the DMV to issue acceptable voter IDs have engaged in "customer-initiated cancellation," (Opoien, The Capital Times).

The successful ACLU response to the Wisconsin Republicans' DoJ's June 6 motion in Ruthelle Frank, et al. v. Scott Walker, et al. is reproduced below.

Republicans sought to stay (halting a trial or other legal proceeding), the voting rights advocates' work to prevent "vulnerable voters from being disenfranchised in the rapidly-approaching elections on August 9 and November 8, 2016."
---
ACLU response to the Wisconsin Republicans' DoJ's June 6 motion in Ruthelle Frank, et al. v. Scott Walker, et al

 June 6, 2016

via ECF (Electronic Case Files]

The Honorable Lynn Adelman
362 United States District Courthouse
517 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Re: Ruthelle Frank, et al. v. Scott Walker, et al., Case No. 11-cv-1128

Dear Judge Adelman,

We represent Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case, and we write in opposition to Defendants’ letter filed today.

This Court should deny Defendants’ last-minute request to stay this case, which has been pending for five years and was filed four years before the One Wisconsin case.

Plaintiffs will soon be filing a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent vulnerable voters from being disenfranchised in the rapidly-approaching elections on August 9 and November 8, 2016.

The motion will provide sufficient time for the Court to rule, and for any necessary changes to be implemented in advance of those elections.

Defendants’ remaining requests related to discovery scheduling issues should be addressed after Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is resolved—that is, after the imminent, irreparable harm to Wisconsin voters has been addressed (and prevented).

The outcome of Plaintiffs’ motion may greatly impact how remaining discovery is structured, to the extent that any is even necessary.

Defendants lastly raise various substantive arguments in the letter that can be addressed in the context of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs intend to seek class certification in conjunction with their motion for a preliminary injunction, at which point Defendants can respond.

Defendants’ opposition brief can also fully address their latest attempt at evading constitutional liability, the new administrative rule Wis. EmR1618, in response to Plaintiffs’ motion. As Plaintiffs expect to demonstrate, this “new” rule is unlikely to alleviate the unreasonable burdens faced by Plaintiff class members. After five long years of DMV involvement, it is now clear that a bureaucracy designed to regulate driving has no business being the gatekeeper for our democracy.

This Court should deny Defendants requests and, Plaintiffs respectfully request, act quickly on Plaintiffs’ imminent motion for a preliminary injunction. [links added]

Respectfully,

s/ Sean J. Young
Sean J. Young
Attorney for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.

Voting Rights Advocates: "Unthinkable" DMV Clerks Decide Constitutionality of Voters

If Republicans and Scott Walker get their way, DMV clerks will make the decision on whether 10,000s of Wisconsin citizens get to vote, exercising the clerks' "discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner." [Frank v. Walker, p.36]

Election law expert, Rick Hasen, says Wisconsin voting right activists make a persuasive case for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Wisconsin photo voter ID case, Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Barland.

Hasen notes the timing and disposition of the Wisconsin voting rights case facing the U.S. presidential elections next year, and the five-to-five split of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pitting Judge Easterbrook's opinion with Judge Richard Posner's.

"This case comes to the Court with an extensive trial record, an exhaustive district court decision, and a pair of diametrically opposed Seventh Circuit opinions by Judges Easterbrook and Posner." [p.11 of Reply Brief]

If the Supreme Court does not grant cert, the GOP-passed bill signed into law by Scott Walker would become effective.

From Wisconsin voting rights activists' Reply Brief filed today:

...The district court identified other problems with the saving construction [by the Wisconsin Supreme Court]. A voter applying for photo ID “must still provide ‘[w]hatever documentation is available which states the person’s name and date of birth,’ and then the [DMV] administrator, in his or her discretion, may accept or reject ‘such extraordinary proof of name and date of birth.’” App. 197a (quoting Wis. Admin. Code § Trans. 102.15(3)(b), (c)). To guide DMV clerks, the Wisconsin Supreme Court offered “this cryptic instruction: ‘the administrator, or his or her designee, shall exercise his or her discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner.’” Id. (quoting NAAC, 851 N.W.2d at 279). It is unthinkable that the right to vote could depend on the “constitutionally sufficient” exercise of discretion by a DMV clerk. See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 (1965) (voting rights “cannot be obliterated by the use of laws ... which leave the voting fate of a citizen to the passing whim or impulse of an individual registrar”).  [p. 14]

Stop Playing Dumb on Voter Obstruction

Update: Steve Schmidt, McCain-Palin top strategist: "It’s part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there’s widespread voter fraud all across the country. In fact, there’s not."

One of the first public reactions to the Romney-Ryan ticket getting trounced at the 2012 polls was Paul Ryan's complaint about the urban vote.

"The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race," Ryan told WISC-TV. (Shear, Steinhauer. NYT)

Ryan knows what that mysterious "urban vote" means.  It means black votes, and they must be stopped. Voter fraud.

In the Wisconsin voter ID trial next Monday, November 4, as predictable as cold in a Wisconsin winter, we'll be treated to uncritical false equivalence press reports of "voter fraud" v. "voter rights".

That there is no in-person voter fraud is irrelevant, the media feels an obligation to play it dumb and present Ryan and the GOP fabrications as fact.

No matter the idiocy of the GOP lie, no matter the empirical truth of 100,000s being disenfranchised by the GOP-crafted photo voter ID law, the GOP objective of disenfranchising voters will not be reported.

I work as an elections inspector (poll worker). Most of the people voting are known by one or more of the poll workers, and the registered voter has to state her address and name, verified by two poll workers just to vote.

Election protection is not the objective of voter ID, GOP protection is.

The problem for the GOP is the Wisconsin Constitution is broad in the protection of voters against temporary partisan majorities, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, though not as sweeping is a powerful weapon used against those imposing voting obstruction.

The GOP has been working for years to add an additional qualification to vote, a photo voter ID, in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution.

This is a nationwide project, which is why there was a flurry of state voter ID laws right after five GOP justices declared section 4 the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

Voting rights remain under GOP attack.

Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge David T. Flanagan issued a permanent injunction on July 17, 2012 that remains in effect, writing:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has often used the term "constitutionally qualified elector" to describe one eligible to vote in our state. That is because the Constitution, not the legislature or any law enacted by the legislature, is the source of the right to vote and unlike the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution sets forth explicitly the requirement for eligibility to vote, Art III, Sec 2 (4). The court must begin any consideration of voter eligibility legislation with the recognition of this bedrock constitutional foundation of Wisconsin voter eligibility.

The GOP is still passing legislative burdens to make voting more difficult or impossible for as many non-GOP voting citizens as the GOP can get away with.

That's the truth.

Wisconsin Voter ID Trial to Feature Mountain of Social Scientific Evidence

Update: See also Nicholas Stephanopoulos' piece on the Voting Rights Act and Section 2. "[E]ach [challenge under Section 2] failed because the plaintiffs couldn’t show that minorities were less likely than whites to possess valid IDs—proof that is now becoming more available. This means that Section 2 should be an increasingly useful weapon against the voting restrictions popping up around the country." Stephanopoulos points to a collaboration between Cal Tech and MIT by Charles Stewart III, entitled Racial Differences in Election Administration. The League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin et al v. Deininger case is the first trial post- Holder v. Shelby County claiming a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

GOP War on Voting, Spotlight Moving to Wisconsin

Those with even a passing interest in voting rights will be watching Wisconsin on November 4 when a highly politicized photo voter ID trial begins.

The entire, years-long Republican Party lie, or if one prefers falsehood, of purported massive in-person voter fraud will be put to trial and is in jeopardy, as will the GOP objective of disenfranchising non-GOP voters.

The trial follows the highly publicized recantation of Judge Richard Posner, the author of a federal appellate opinion that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, whose theory of photo voter ID was used by the US Supreme Court in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, that has been touted as justification for voter obstruction laws in states across the country.

Once in power, GOP legislatures and governors across the nation raced to enact restrictive photo voter ID law since 2011.

"Defendants (Scott Walker et al) have not put forward any compelling government interest that their stringent photo ID law actually addresses—such as a single prosecution for in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Wisconsin history—that would justify these oppressive burdens. For all these reasons, the law as applied to these classes violates the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments [poll tax] to the United States Constitution," reads the PLAINTIFFS’ CIVIL L. R. 16(c) PRETRIAL REPORT in Frank v. Walker.

The witness list includes academic experts, veterans, students and civil rights workers who will establish the undue burden imposed on 100,000s of Wisconsin citizens by Wisconsin Act 23, passed in 2011 with sole GOP support and unanimous opposition from civil rights groups.

For witness list, see PLAINTIFFS’ CIVIL L. R. 16(c) PRETRIAL REPORT in Frank v. Walker, and PLAINTIFFS’ CIVIL L. R. 16(c) PRETRIAL REPORT in League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin et al v. Deininger et al.


The trial is expected to last some two weeks.

League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin et al v. Deininger is the first trial post- Holder v. Shelby County claiming a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Judge Lynn Adelman (1997-present) will preside in Milwaukee.

Wisconsin's Photo ID Trial in November Is First Using Section Two of Voting Rights Act

Bettye Stitts Jones was a life-long fighter for civil rights
whose battle is joined. She was the lead plaintiff in
Jones et al. v. Deininger et al. (Case 2:12-cv-00185)

The world will be watching Wisconsin on November 4, 2013 as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin takes up challenges to the photo voter ID law.

This is the first trial in the country post-Shelby County v. Holder using Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Act last summer, as noted by The Advancement Project.

During the debate for the first renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 1970, Rep. William McCulloch (R-Ohio) blasted the Nixon administration for attempting to gut the Act.

Fourth-three years later, five GOP Supreme Court justices accomplished Nixon's objective in the infamous Shelby County v. Holder (June 2013) decision.

To contemporary eyes, it's appears alien to watch the hard-won achievements of the Civil Rights Movement come under such blatant attack.

In 1970 McCulloch spoke against the segregationists using "more sophisticated machinery for discriminating against the black voter," a prospect that McCulloch and every fair-minded American dreaded.

On November 4, 2013, two federal civil rights cases—Frank et al. v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128), and Jones et al. v. Deininger et al. (Case 2:12-cv-00185)—will challenge the Scott Walker administration and the Republican Party's Wisconsin photo voter ID law under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, among other claims made by plaintiffs.

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

As anti-voting rights forces (the Republican and Tea Parties) employ new sophisticated machinery for discriminating against the wrong kind of voters showing up to vote—photo voter ID, curtailing early voting, repressing registration drives and on and on—the Republican Party and voter obstruction operatives want to call the racist ex-Milwaukee cop, Michael Sandvick and other last-minute witnesses to defend the photo voter ID law.

The Wisconsin photo voter ID was passed with sole Republican Party support against unanimous Democratic Party and civil rights groups' opposition.

The pro-voting forces will present social scientific evidence demonstrating the "severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; [violations of] the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as an unconstitutional poll tax; and [violations of] the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents," as specified in the Jones' complaint filed in February 2011.

To give you an idea how petty and disdainful Republicans will be, consider their reaction to the death of Bettye Jones, an original co-plaintiff in Jones et al. v. Deininger et al. (Case 2:12-cv-00185).

Bettye Jones passed away on October 31, 2012 while the photo voter ID law was enjoined by two separate Wisconsin state courts, and thus her case was taken off the federal Court calendar and held in abeyance.

Mrs. Jones was a resident of Brookfield, Wisconsin, and was eligible to register and vote in Wisconsin elections.

The 76-year-old mother moved to Wisconsin in 2011 to live with her daughter whom she loved.

She lacked the certified birth certificate to obtain a Wisconsin-issued driver's license or other photo identification that would allow her to vote under the Republican-passed photo voter ID law.

The Republicans claimed falsely that Mrs. Jones had qualifying ID all along and that Mrs. Jones did not live in Wisconsin when she passed away. The Republicans sought to dismiss Jones et al. v. Deininger et al. (Case 2:12-cv-00185 on this basis.

These are lies, and indicative of the disrespect Republicans have for African-American families.

Mrs. Jones moved to Wisconsin in 2011 to live with her daughter! But Wisconsin Republicans did their worst to see this civil rights champion lose her right to vote. In reality, "Bettye was an inspiration to all of us who knew her. A fighter for civil rights her whole life - from helping integrate Ohio's schools to electing the first African American mayor of a major city, she spend this last year of her life fighting Wisconsin's onerous photo ID law that would have prevented her from voting had she and her daughter not taken the extraordinary measures they did," as was noted after her passing.

Has the Republican Party no shame? No sense of decency? Wisconsin Department of Justice staff really need to ask themselves if they wish to be associated with this contemptible effort to obstruct civil rights.

From the Advancement Project:

Bettye Jones and her daughter Debra Crawford, detail the long struggle to get a Wisconsin photo ID for Bettye, who was born in the segregated south and never issued a birth certificate. Bettye was the lead plaintiff in an Advancement Project lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's photo ID law.

Federal Trials on Wisconsin Photo Voter ID to be Held Nov. 4

The two federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law have been ordered to be called to trial on November 4 by Federal District Judge Lynn Adelman.

The two federal cases are:

• Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Jones et al v. Deininger et al (Case 2:12-cv-00185), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The two Wisconsin state cases are:

• League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker (Case 11CV4669) - 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 (Case 11CV5492) - permanent injunction order issued on July 17, 2012 by Judge David T. Flanagan

In the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker case, a petition for review has been filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

In the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker case, the case will be announced for oral arguments to take place after September 2013, sometime during the 2013-14 term.

The Republican Party at the Wisconsin and national levels remain engaged in their multi-year project to obstruct voters through the use of Photo Voter ID laws, as proposed by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, first reported by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD).

Since 2011, "an unprecedented wave of voter suppression policies were passed or proposed in a majority of states, making access to the ballot more burdensome for voters of color" and college-age citizens, as noted in the Advancement Project and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The Republican Party has been the sole party responsible for the wave of voter suppression in an effort to keep non-GOP voting citizens from exercising their right to vote.

Ruthelle Frank Reacts to Recent Voting Rights Developments

Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw, Wisconsin fights for
her right to vote against Scott Walker
- Image from the Brad Blog

Ruthelle Frank missed voting for the first time in 60 years last month.

Ms. Frank was unable to legally vote in the February 21 Spring Primary election, disenfranchised from voting in her local school board election in Brokaw, Wisconsin.

Frank is a co-plaintiff who filed suit in federal court to block Scott Walker's voter ID law saying it unconstitutionally burdens the rights of senior citizens, minorities, homeless veterans and others from voting. [Frank v. Walker, 11cv1128, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)]

She is a 84-year-old woman living in Brokaw [and is a member of the Brokaw Village Board] and has been voting since 1948, but would have to pay up to $200 to get a Wisconsin GOP-approved ID.
 
Reached by phone Friday morning, Ms. Frank offered her thoughts on recent developments in the GOP voter obstruction fights.
 
"I have been living here 83 years; everybody knows me. We [Brokaw] have 194 people. I maybe could have voted last month illegally," Frank said. "I wasn't allowed to vote legally though, because I didn't have a valid Wisconsin ID. I didn't vote."
 
As civil rights activists today march from Selma to Montgomery in protest of Alabama's voter ID and anti-immigration laws, Ms. Frank keeps up the fight in Wisconsin.

"My motto is: You don't use what you have, you lose it. But I have never seen treatment like this, what is going on," said Frank. "I'm fighting for everyone who has lost his [voting] rights. This isn't right, it's just plain crazy. Just because we're old, and can't get around like we're young doesn't mean we're stupid and can't think and shouldn't be able to vote."

Asked about GOP criticism of Dane County Judge David Flanagan's temporary injunction barring implementation of the voter ID law while having signed a recall Walker petition, Frank said, "as far as I'm concerned, he has an opinion about Scott Walker and he [Flanagan] has to live his own life, you're not supposed to speak what you believe in?"

Frank whose story was broken by Robert Mentzer last year in the Wausau Daily Herald, sang the praises of old-time journalism, singling out Mentzer.

"I called up Bob Mentzer of the Wausau Daily Herald and told him what was going on; and he just said, 'he's driving over,'" said Frank.

As the state and federal law suits against voter ID laws across the country continue, Frank said she is optimistic and ready for the fight.

"We're going to make it, we're are not going to crawl under a rock. I'm talked to people from California, Washington and even had a relative in Florida call me after seeing me on [Rachel Maddow]. Keep writing and thank you for spreading the story," Frank said.

The GOP Hates People with Whom They Disagree Casting Votes

Ruhelle Frank of Brokaw, Wisconsin fights for her right
to vote in federal court against Scott Walker.
Because of the state’s new voter ID law,
2012 will be the first year Frank can’t vote.

Days after the first election under Wisconsin's new voter ID law Tuesday, a federal complaint need not make a facial (on its face) challenge to Wisconsin's voter obstruction, stop-nonexistent-voter-impersonation-nonsense statute. See the Brennan Center's: "future (federal) challenges to voter laws must be filed with respect to the application of a specific law—after its controversial mandates are already applied in an election."

But it won't mater.

The Wisconsin ID law is so blatantly unconstitutional that I think even the corrupt 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have to enjoin the law as voting in Wisconsin is extremely well-protected under Wisconsin Constitutional law, and upholding the law would cause GOP justices to look even more foolish than they do now.

So, in both state and federal court, we are looking good.

• In other developments,
•  Brad Friedman chronicles some early reactions from users' point of view of the GOP voter obstruction system in practice.
• The Racine Journal Times reports: "69-year old veteran Gil Paar was shocked when poll workers told him his photo I.D. from the V.A. wasn’t on the accepted list."
•  Eric Kleefeld's Wisconsin Veteran Irate at Voter ID Law: ‘What The F*ck Did I Go in For?’ offers a nice wrap-up.
• And my A Voter ID Reality Overlooked provides background
• Worth a quick look from 2011: Wisconsin Official Instructs Staff Not To Mention Free IDs for Voting

I worked the polls Tuesday as an election inspector, and I had to reject an Army Reserve ID that did not include an expiration date.

- Before getting into revealing how foolish Republicans are on this issue, note that before you vote, you have to register to vote; see Wisconsin Voter Registration Application. To register to vote you need to establish who you are, and where you are (residency) with government and employee IDs, leases, utility bills, bank statements, etc; and if you have a driver’s license you need to register with your driver’s licence. In addition, you need to sign the voter reg. form stating that you are aware that falsification of any information is a Class 1 felony in Wisconsin. That’s before you can vote. … Then, you have to present a GOP-approved ID that Republicans say, is intended to stop rampant voter impersonation at the polls. Not one case of voter impersonation in Wisconsin has been prosecuted going back decades. -

One women left Tuesday before she voted because she felt the registration process was too intrusive, and it is. She had been purged from the voting rolls through a clerical error and so had to re-register.

A election inspector colleague, a Republican, said he didn't believe college and tech students, the elderly and black voters in Milwaukee were denied the right to vote.

I told him about a research report by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute showing that over 177,000 elderly persons in Wisconsin aged 65 and older do not possess a driver's license or state photo identification.

"No," he said. They must have IDs to receive "their Social Securty checks," he said triumphantly.

Tell that to 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 86-year-old Darwin Spinks (ThinkProgress).

Factually incorrect, but never use facts and logic in speaking to die-hard Republicans—it's not their thing. Should have ignored him.

Ruthelle Frank, 16 co-plaintiffs and the ACLU are filing suit in federal court to block the law saying it unconstitutionally burdens the rights of senior citizens, minorities, homeless veterans and others from voting. [See Frank v. Walker, 11cv1128, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)]

Finally, another federal lawsuit against Wisconsin's new voter identification law by the Advancement Project was filed Thursday on behalf of several groups who say it discriminates against African-Americans and Latinos. ... three other lawsuits are all pending. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP filed a lawsuit each in Dane County Circuit Court. The American Civil Liberties Union have also filed a federal lawsuit. AP

In closing, this question has not been anwsered: Why didn't Scott Walker get together in 2011 with the League of Women Voters, civil rights groups and other communites of interests and say: We're crafting a Voter ID bill, but we do not want legal voters to be stopped from voting. What can we do stop impersonation at the polls while ensuring the legal voter reflects the uncontroversial Wisconsin constituional doctrine:

"Every one having the constitutional qualifications then, may to go the polls, vested with this franchise, of which no statutory condition precedent can deprive him, because the [Wisconsin] constitution makes him, by force of his present qualifications, a qualified voter at such election."
- [Wis. Const, article III, section 1] Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71: (August 1875)] Wisc. - Wisconsin Supreme Court

84-Year-Old Wisconsin Woman Takes on Scott Walker in Voting Rights Suit

Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw, Wisconsin fights for
her right to vote in federal court against Scott Walker

As State Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Eagle River) proposed legislation stating birth records should be free if needed for a voter I.D. in Wisconsin, an 84-Year-Old woman [and member of the Brokaw, Wisconsin Village Board], who has been voting since 1948, would have to pay up to $200 to vote in the next election under Scott Walker's voter obstruction law in Wisconsin.

Forget it, Scott Walker.

So, Ms. Frank, 16 co-plaintiffs and the ACLU are filing suit in federal court to block the law saying it unconstitutionally burdens the rights of senior citizens, minorities, homeless veterans and others from voting. [See Frank v. Walker, 11cv1128, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)]

Ms. Frank is asking the Court to find the Voter ID law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violative of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawing payment of a poll tax as a precondition to vote.

By Joe Sherman at the ACLU

Out in the Cold at Age 84: Wisconsin’s Ruthelle Frank Fights for Her Right to Vote

Ruthelle Frank, a resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin since her birth in 1927, has none of the accepted forms of photo ID under Wisconsin’s photo ID law which goes into effect at the February primary election. In order to get a state ID card, she needs to prove citizenship, but since she was born at home, she has never had a birth certificate. The state Register of Deeds, however, does have a record of her birth and can produce a birth certificate at a $20 cost. There’s one problem though — her maiden name (Wedepohl) is misspelled in the record. That record can only be amended by legal proceeding, and the combined fees will run Ruthelle potentially upwards of $200. The state will not waive any of these fees, and under the new law, if she cannot obtain a state ID card, Ruthelle will be sent away from the polls.

If you lost all your IDs and personal documents in a fire today, could you prove who you are? What if there was an election coming up and your state required you to present photo ID in order to vote? Could you figure it out in time? Do you know where to go? What forms and documents you need? Do you have the time and money to get it all done?

In Wisconsin, it takes at least 3 types of proof to get a state ID card that can be used to vote. For most people, the combination of required documents is a certified copy of a birth certificate, a Social Security Card, and some proof of residency like a utility bill or government mail. But it takes ID to get ID. And, in some cases, it takes (A) ID and/or money to (B) get the ID required to (C) get the ID you actually need to vote. This obstacle course is leaving eligible voters discouraged and disenfranchised.

Some photo ID proponents have repeatedly argued that the only people who lack photo ID are those who don’t vote anyway. False. Ruthelle, a sitting member of her village board, has voted in every election since 1948, the year in which Truman signed the Marshall Plan and NYC subway fares jumped from 5 to 10 cents. She is a longstanding participant in this democracy. And sadly, her story is in no way unique — every day, eligible voters are finding out that, under current law, they will not be able to vote in 2012 or will face numerous and significant hurdles on the road to making their voice heard. At age 84, Ruthelle is now serving as the lead plaintiff in the ACLU’s constitutional challenge to Wisconsin’s photo ID law. She’s fighting back because she believes no person should have to pay a cent or pass a bureaucracy-navigation test in order to vote. The U.S. Constitution agrees with her.

Ruthelle’s disfranchisement is horrifically unjust, but she’s actually better prepared to deal with this than many voters without accepted photo ID, who are disproportionately low-income, elderly, and/or minority, and disproportionately marginalized. Despite Ruthelle’s physical disability (she is paralyzed on the left side of her body), she has family that can assist her, savings, education, and familiarity with both the electoral process and local government. Consider the eligible Wisconsin voter with few contacts, low or no income or savings, and much less education. Is that person any less a citizen of this country? That voter is at risk of losing his/her voice in Wisconsin and everywhere in the U.S. that photo ID laws have been enacted. But maybe you’d reply that most people have photo ID in America. Well, the Ruthelle Franks of the world want you to know that “most people” isn’t a democracy.

Read more on the fight against voter suppression.