Wisconsin Women Fight for Right to Vote at Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Republican Party's new banner - 
Corrupt, centralized, authoritarian, statist and
bigoted regime

"(A)s a matter of law under the Wisconsin Constitution, sacrificing a qualified elector's right to vote is not a reasonable exercise of the government's prerogative to regulate elections. ... Where does the Wisconsin Constitution say that the government, we, the people, created can simply cast aside the inherent suffrage right of any qualified elector on the wish and promise—even the guarantee—that doing so serves to prevent some unqualified individuals from voting?"

It doesn't. In fact, it unequivocally says the opposite. The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors, not just the fortunate majority for whom Act 23 poses little obstacle at the polls."
- Judge Richard Niess. Decision and Order Granting Summary Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction of Wisconsin Voter ID law on March 12, 2012
---
Even as Ohio, Wisconsin, and other GOP-controlled states advance bills to make voting more difficult, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and allies head to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to fight for the right to vote against a voter obstruction law, Act 23 or the Photo Voter ID.

"We are confident that we have a strong case based on clear language in the state constitution, and we are proud that because of the injunctions, no citizen was disenfranchised by the voter law in five elections in 2012 and 2012," said Melanie G. Raney, president of the League.

The Wisconsin Constitution, Article III, Section 1 reads:  "Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district," an expansive guarantee to vote that has been under attack since Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans assumed control of the executive and legislative branches of Wisconsin government in 2011.

Wisconsin's Voter ID law remains enjoined by Wisconsin state courts. The state cases to be heard are League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker.

Arguments as scheduled to be heard in the ornate Supreme Court room in the Madison state capitol at 9:45 A.M.; February 25. Court room doors open at 9:00 A.M.

WisconsinEye is tentatively scheduled to live stream the arguments on its website online, and on Charter Cable Channel 995 and Time Warner Channel 363.

A holding that Wisconsin's Voter ID law—that effectively denies the franchise to vote for many Wisconsin is constitutional were it not enjoined—would be a spectacular ruling that would bring outrage from the legal and civil rights communities now under political and legal assault.

The League case features a circuit court opinion that Act 23 is unconstitutional on its face, a ruling overturned by a state appellate panel in an opinion written by Judge Brian Blanchard. Voting advocates see this as no bad harbinger.

"(I)n a lengthy footnote, Judge Blanchard distinguished the (League facial challenge) case from another challenge to the law, filed by the NAACP and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, that provides more extensive evidence that a voter ID requirement would "severely burden a significant number of qualified voters but is not reasonably necessitated or designed to deter fraud or otherwise effect an important government interest," notes Brendan Fisher at PRWatch.

Blanchard's opinion has been roundly criticized and likely will not figure into the legal resolution of the case, though Republicans often cite the opinion.

An increasingly partisan and Republican Legislative Reference Bureau improperly notes the League appellate opinion in added partisan spin in a half-baked annotation of the Wisconsin government's online state constitution's Suffrage section.

Even the published text of Wisconsin's Constitution is not safe from the Republicans' efforts to sanitize public documents of perceived anti-GOP bias. In this instance, the plain language of Wisconsin's expansive Suffrage (voting) guarantees.

The state cases are being heard as two federal cases are under deliberation in federal court.

A post-trial brief requesting a federal injunction has been filed after the trial of two consolidated cases arguing violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

So even if a radical anti-voting ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to occur, it is likely that a federal injunction will be granted after the November 2013 federal trial that was a judicial rout of anti-voting forces.

"The credible evidence convincingly proved that Act 23 will impose harsh and widespread burdens on voters. Virtually all of the factual testimony - of Plaintiffs, other voters, non-parties who provide assistance to voters, as well as Defendants and state employees called adversely by  Plaintiffs - went essentially unchallenged by Defendants. All this evidence compels one conclusion:  Act 23 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth and Twenty -Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and must be enjoined."

Frank v. Walker Post-trial brief challenging Wisconsin Voter ID Law. Act 23—passed with unanimous GOP support, unanimous Democratic opposition and unanimous opposition from civil rights and voting rights citizen groups.

In federal court last November, the ACLU and pro-voting attorneys were legal masters. The ACLU website describes the stakes:

"The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit charging that Wisconsin’s voter ID law is unconstitutional and will deprive citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. Voter ID laws are the most common type of voter suppression legislation moving through state legislatures across the country as part of a nationwide attack on the right to vote."

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.