Wisconsin Republicans Want to Close Early Voting Sites for Weeks in Desperate Move to Clamp Down on Voters in Lameduck Session

Federal litigation would likely doom anti-voting measure

Madison, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Republicans are going to consider several anti-voting measures in an extraordinary session of the lameduck legislature, the Wisconsin State Journal reports today.

The anti-voting measures include a proposed clampdown on voting that would effectively shutter early voting sites for weeks.

A similar early voting clampdown was found unconstitutional and "pretextual" (misrepresentative) in the Summer of 2016 in a sweeping opinion in U.S. District Court, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen.

That federal voting rights court case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, is now before the full United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Wisconsin Republicans risk offending some Republican-leaning appellate judges in the Seventh Circuit because Republican justification of consistency is identical to its past justifications of "uniformity," ruled to not serve a rational state purpose by U.S. Dist Judge James Peterson in One Wisconsin.

Also complicating new Republican-enacted restrictions against voting is the election of Democratic Party Attorney General Josh Kaul. 

Republicans are unlikely to prevail in statewide races here if free and fair elections continue in the voter-friendly manner of post-One Wisconsin.

In One Wisconsin a U.S. District judge ruled much of the Republican transformation of Wisconsin election law and many Republican "arguments for its restrictive voting rules [are] pretexual, [misrepresentative], and really aimed at giving Republicans advantage in elections," as noted by Rick Hasen, an election law expert living in California, (see Becker, The Capital Times, Mal Contends, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, Mal Contends, Moritzlaw, Rick Hasen, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

The Seventh Circuit includes four new judges who were nominated by Donald Trump.

The four judges are expected to be hostile to voting rights, and were nominated because of their rightwing jurisprudence and fidelity to the Republican Party.

The Trump-nominated judges are: Amy C. Barrett, Michael B. Brennan, Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., and Amy J. St. Eve.

Wisconsin Republicans' Voter Obstruction Looms in 2018 Mid-terms

Republicans talk a good game about the flag,
but when it comes to protecting voting and
the substantive liberties of Americans,
Republicans are a grave threat to democracy.

Urban types have 'too much access to voting,' say Wisconsin Republicans

Madison, Wisconsin—Since 2011 Wisconsin Republicans and only Republicans have transformed election law to benefit Republicans and diminish voters' right to vote.

In U.S. District Court in July 2016, a federal judge, James Peterson, in a sweeping opinion found several Republican-enacted statutory changes to election law pretextual, which is legalese for deceitful and misrepresentative, (One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen).

But stopping non-Republican voters from voting is a strategic initiative for Wisconsin Republicans. The urgent and grave threat to democracy is existential. See See Twenty of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared. "If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast."

As the mid-term campaigns for 2018 begin, Republicans know their only chance for victory is to suppress the total vote of non-Republicans, a commitment about which they hold no shame and indeed are proud as it serves to install Republicans against popular opinion.

On The Rachel Maddow Show last night, a segment points to a new analysis on Republicans rigging the Wisconsin 2016 election, a feat to they hope to repeat in 2018, (Berman, Mother Jones).

This is critical reading for citizens concerned about the health of our Republic under attack by the Republican Party.

Notes Berman:

The voter ID law was one of 33 election changes passed in Wisconsin after Walker took office, and it dovetailed with his signature push to dismantle unions, taking away his opponents’ most effective organizing tool. Wisconsin’s Legislature cut early voting from 30 days to 12, reduced early voting hours on nights and weekends, and restricted early voting to one location per county, hampering voters in large urban areas and sprawling rural ones. It also added new residency requirements for voter registration, eliminated staffers who led statewide registration drives, and made it harder to count absentee ballots.

Republicans were explicit about the purposes of these changes as well. On the floor of the state Senate, Grothman said of extended early voting hours in heavily Democratic cities like Madison and Milwaukee, 'I want to nip this in the bud before too many other cities get on board.' (Roughly 514,000 Wisconsinites voted early in 2012; they favored Obama over Mitt Romney by 58 to 41 percent, according to exit polls.) The county clerk of conservative Waukesha County said early voting gave 'too much access' to voters in Milwaukee and Madison. Judge Peterson later ruled the early voting cuts had been passed 'to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans.' 

Republicans will continue their attack against voting in 2018.

A looming target is the city of Madison's effort to offer voting for voters and a continuing effort to educate citizens about their legally strong voting rights, a political and civil crime in Republican-land.

See Madison, Wisconsin Fights Republican Voter Obstruction, and 2017 Spring primary election draws record-breaking early voting in Madison.

From The Rachel Maddow Show:

Scale of Voting Obstruction Project Is Not Acknowledged

Consider Wisconsin election law and the failure and refusal of elected representatives, bureaucrats, corporate press and most of the judiciary to note the intent behind unconstitutional voter obstruction, beyond passing comment. The voting rights community is small and its prospects are not heartening.

On the racist, voter obstructionist side, we have Wisconsin Republicans.

Wisconsin Republicans, and only Republicans, crafted the transformation of Wisconsin election law since they assumed elected office in 2011. This is a fact of Wisconsin public policy, and is noted in the July 2016 opinion in the voting rights case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)). (Worth noting, as well, is Judge James T. Peterson's silly and polemical characterization of Republican-enacted election law changes as "election reforms." [See page 8. "Since [2011], Wisconsin has implemented a series of election reforms. These laws covered almost every aspect of voting: registration, absentee voting, photo identification, and election-day mechanics." What's Peterson going to do later when the Republican-enacted photo voter ID is further litigated, adopt the Republican Hans von Spakovsky, and John Fund's talking point, 'Easy to vote, hard to cheat,' as his own? (Mal Contends) (Mal Contends).])

Peterson's bending over to find no fault with Wisconsin Republican motives in his One Wisconsin opinion, [Peterson found some fault], ignores both the intent and the effect of Republicans' work to block voters. Republicans stopped 10,000s of voters living in the black sectors of Milwaukee from voting so mission accomplished in election 2016, but with not enough help from Peterson protecting voters.

Effect of Republican Voter Obstruction Laws

Election law scholars, Lawrence Tribe, Ned Foley, Rich Hasan and Chris Carson, weigh in on the question of obstruction effect on voters this week.

A citizen's right and ability to vote is worth considering under the assumption that the political appointees, federal judges like Peterson, are political animals, and upon assumption to the bench do not suddenly become dispassionate Constitutional geniuses. Federal judges most often can be best understand as politicians in robes, and as such write opinions that are politic. Broadly so legal-political commentary and analysis written by politicians have he same defect.

Very rarely will readers find in the judiciary or the academy a finding of fact that Wisconsin Republicans for example, and only Republicans, craft law after law to obstruct the vote, and use new election laws to administer elections in an unconstitutional fashion.

I've yet to find widespread note that Wisconsin Republicans' legislative objective is to frustrate, aggravate, and obstruct as many minority, young and disabled voters as possible in an effort to suppress the total vote in favor of the Republican Party, (Mal Contends).

It should not be surprising that Lawrence Tribe's comment on voter obstruction has been met with widespread hostile commentary. Tribe writes, "Call it what you like, but the # of voters turned away for not having required forms of ID exceeded margin of T’s victory in MI, Pa and Wis."

It takes a major social-scientific investigation to quantify the phenomenon of voter obstruction, because protecting voting just is not in the cards of American political culture. But Tribe is certainly correct from data in the Milwaukee black and brown areas alone.

Wisconsin Republicans have since 2011 worked to transform every corner of government into Republican operations, (Mal Contends) (Mal Contends).

One of the first Republican-enacted changes to with respect to the adminstration of Wisconsin election law was the Republicans' concerted effort in 2011 to staff 3,500 polling places with Republican partisans, to further the objective of obstructing the vote of undesirables.

The lack of acknowledgement and challenge to this Republican attack on the foundation of American democracy should send chills through the political world. I don't believe this is the case, and we should all thank Lawrence Tribe and Chris Carson for noting the scale of the Republican voting obstruction project.

Who are the Republicans staffing your local polling place? Ask your local municipal clerk to find out. Tape record the conversation, the recording may come in handy.

In the meantime, check out the conversation in Ned Foley and Rich Hasan's sites. A great conversation, but one which omits the prospects for voting for 10,000s of black and brown Americans.

Federal Judge Stops Republican Voter Obstruction Laws That 'Transformed Wisconsin’s Elections'

Sweeping voting rights win in Wisconsin in
One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen - Jenny Dye and Scott
Ross of One Wisconsin, a named co-plaintiff,
celebrate on Friday - Image: One Wisconsin

Judge rules Wisconsin Republicans sought partisan advantage by denying rights of Wisconsin voters, going so far as to discriminate on the basis of race in Milwaukee

Wisconsin Republicans' voter obstruction laws took a massive blast from United States District Judge James D. Peterson in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324) (Moritzlaw).

Peterson issued a sweeping order finding Republican-enacted, (and only Republican), election laws unconstitutional in a major win for voting rights in Wisconsin.

"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 Peterson. (p. 2).

Writes a noted election scholar, Rick Hasan, in his early and the first-published analysis of Peterson's 119-page opinion at Hasen's Election Law site:

Among other things, the court has ordered that expired but otherwise valid student id cards will be valid for voting. This is yet another win for voting rights activists in the past few weeks. The trial court enjoined the following WI laws:

• most of the state-imposed limitations on the time and location for in-person absentee voting (although the state may set a uniform rule disallowing in-person absentee voting on the Monday before elections);
• the requirement that ''dorm lists' to be used as proof of residence include citizenship information;
• the 28-day durational residency requirement;
• the prohibition on distributing absentee ballots by fax or email; and
• the bar on using expired but otherwise qualifying student IDs.

This is a pretty sweeping opinion, which rejects many of the state’s arguments for its restrictive voting rules as pretexual, (misrepresentative), and really aimed at giving Republicans advantage in elections. The judge was particularly skeptical of measures which made it harder to vote in Milwaukee, with its large population of minority voters, and to a lesser extent, Madison, a liberal stronghold in the state.

The One Wisconsin decision was preceded by hours by another major voting rights win against Republicans in North Carolina, (Mother Jones). Another federal voting rights case in Wisconsin, Frank v. Walker, preceded One Wisconsin by days, (Mal Contends).

Both cases and One Wisconsin are major wins for voting rights and defeats for Republicans voter obstruction.

Concludes Peterson in One Wisconsin: "The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence. The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of  voter  ID  law  is  a  cure  worse  than  the  disease," (p. 4).

Republican attacks on Milwaukee early voting are discriminatory

The Court held the Republican-enacted law limiting Milwaukee's in-person absentee, (early voting), voting "intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," (p. 42). Writes Peterson:

Based on the evidence that plaintiffs have presented, the court finds that Wisconsin’s restrictions on the hours for in-person absentee voting have had a disparate effect on African Americans and Latinos. The court also finds that the legislature’s justification for these restrictions was meager, and that the intent was to secure partisan advantage. Finally, the court finds that the legislature specifically targeted large municipalities — Milwaukee in particular —intending to curtail minority voting. ...

[Republican] Defendants  contend that [Senators] Grothman and Fitzgerald were simply trying to achieve a measure of statewide uniformity because smaller  towns were unable to afford the extended hours that Milwaukee was offering. That explanation is hard to credit. ...

The acknowledged impetus for this law was the sight of long lines of Milwaukee citizens voting after hours. Yet instead of finding a way to provide  more  access to voters in small towns, the legislature responded by reining in voters in Milwaukee, the state’s most populous city, where two-thirds of its African American citizens live. ...

Combined, these findings lead the court to further find that the legislature passed the provisions restricting the hours for in-person absentee voting motivated in part by the intent to discriminate against voters on the basis of race. The legislature’s ultimate objective was political: Republicans sought to maintain control of the state government. But the methods that the legislature chose to achieve that result involved suppressing the votes of Milwaukee’s residents, who are disproportionately African American and Latino. The legislature did not act out of pure racial animus; rather, suppressing the votes of reliably Democratic minority voters in Milwaukee was a means to achieve its political objective. But that, too, constitutes race discrimination. Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1408 (7th Cir. 1984) (“We think there is little point for present purposes in distinguishing discrimination based on an ultimate objective of keeping certain incumbent whites in office from discrimination borne of pure racial animus.”), (pp. 42-45)

From One Wisconsin Institute:

MADISON, Wis. — Today, federal Judge James Peterson issued a ruling in the federal voting rights lawsuit One Wisconsin Institute Inc., et al v. Gerald Nichol, et al. One Wisconsin Institute and their co-plaintiffs have argued that a series of election law changes made by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led state legislature were meant to and have the effect of making it more difficult to vote in Wisconsin, especially for minorities, young people, and voters who tend to support Democratic candidates.

Republicans defending the challenged provisions have claimed they are necessary to protect against voter fraud, despite the fact that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate a voter. But behind closed doors, Wisconsin legislators discussed how the law would help Republicans by disenfranchising voters in Democratic areas.

Today’s ruling strikes down a number of the challenged provisions restricting voting rights of Wisconsinites, including restrictions on early voting hours and elimination of weekend voting; restrictions on use of student IDs for voting, and the 28-day residency requirement, among other provisions.

In regard to restrictions on hours for in-person absentee voting, the court specifically found that the law “intentionally discriminates on the basis of race…The legislature’s immediate goal was to achieve a partisan objective, but the means of achieving that objective was to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans.”

Scot Ross, executive director for One Wisconsin Institute, offered the following statements in response to today’s ruling:

“We argued Gov. Walker made it harder for Democrats to vote and easier for Republicans to cheat, and the judge agreed.

“The people behind the laws Judge Peterson has struck down sought to put their own partisan interests ahead of the rights of every American — regardless of race, party, or age – to cast their ballot as they so choose.

“Make no mistake about it, this is the strategy that has gone on for decades with Republicans. They want to do everything to create longer lines in urban areas and on college campuses, so that instead of accessing the franchise, voters simply go home because they can’t wait for hours and hours. This is their strategy, and there is not one piece of this attack on voters that can be seen as other than serving that end.”

“As the eyes of the nation are focused on the accomplishments and legacy of our nation’s first African American President and First Lady, Gov. Walker and his legislative allies refuse to accept the expanding diversity of our nation. Rather than make their public policy more inclusive, Republicans instead chose to rig the laws to rig the ballot box.

“Today’s decision is a huge win not only for the plaintiffs but also for democracy itself. We could not be more proud of this victory.”

Bizarre Republican Polemics Defending Voter Obstruction

Even in the courtroom Republican defenders of voter obstruction substitute polemics for constitutional reasoning as Republicans refuse to close out project attacking voting rights

Republican defenders of voter obstruction often use virtually identical language to defend state laws that "disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," to borrow a phrase from Judge Richard Posner.

Posner's extraordinary 2104 On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is a veritable judicial white paper explaining Republican state efforts to suppress voters, (Posner, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), (Friedman, The Brad Blog), (Mal Contends).

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, the Republican Party's point man on Republican voter obstruction in his state, announced yesterday his office filed an appeal in the voting rights case, Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Jon Hustad (Case No. 2:15-cv-1802), (Ohio Secretary of State).

Said Hustad, "To ensure we were fulfilling our goal of making it easy to vote and hard to cheat, we expanded weekend and weekday hours for in-person absentee voting as part of a compromise for the reduction in hours that came with the elimination of Golden Week," (Hustad, Ohio Secretary of State) (emphasis added). Hustad terms the Ohio Organizing Collaborative case the Ohio Democratic Party et al v. Husted, using Republican Party polemics contradicting the federal judge hearing the case on the title.

Easy to vote and hard to cheat.

This phrase may sound familiar to Wisconsin politicos. That's because the Republican Gov. Scott Walker often uses the phrase (or a derivation) when trying to defend voter obstruction in Wisconsin.

"In our state we have a photo ID requirement that would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat," Walker told reporters last year at Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride event, (CBS News, June 6, 2015) (emphasis added).

From Ohio to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and across the country, Republican voter obstruction operatives such as Hans von Spakovsky, and John Fund employ the phrase as a justification for voter obstruction laws such as Wisconsin's. Catchy phrase but vacuous as an argument.

Bizarre

In Wisconsin, the Republican case for voter obstruction as made at the bench trial of One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)) has veered into the vacuous and the bizarre.

Novack Doctrine

One witness for the Republicans, Waukesha County Clerk Kathleen Novack, testified at One Wisconsin, saying, "too much access to the voters as far as opportunities" to vote exist in Madison and Milwaukee, (Jake's Economic TA Funhouse), (Opoien, The Capital Times). This would be the Novack Doctrine, a guiding principle of Republican jurisprudence in voting rights law.

Schimel Doctrine

Republicans at the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice also kept up their line of reasoning that photo voter IDs are popular with citizens who possess the Ids, hence Wisconsin's restrictive law conditioning the right to vote on presenting Republican-approved photo voter IDs is both popular and Constitutional, (Mal Contends). This is the Schimel Doctrine, so named after Wisconsin's current Republican attorney general.

The Schimel Doctrine that voting restrictions' constitutionality is conditioned on polling numbers was ridiculed by a Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's three-judge panel in 2014.

"What conceivable relevance is a polling number to this litigation?," said Judge Frank Easterbrook, a voting rights opponent and author of the 2014 opinion upholding Wisconsin's photo voter ID law in Frank v. Walker.

Testimony has concluded in One Wisconsin. Closing arguments are scheduled for June 30.

One Wisconsin Institute

Below is a press release from the One Wisconsin Institute on the conclusion of testimony.

Testimony Concludes in Federal Voting Rights Trial Challenge to Republican-Led Attacks on Electoral Participation in Wisconsin

Intentions of Five Year Campaign to Undermine Voting Rights and Impacts of Voter Suppression Schemes on Legal Voters Exposed

MADISON, Wis. — Testimony concluded today in the federal voting rights trial, One Wisconsin Institute et. al. v. Gerald Nichol et. al., which challenges the state voter ID requirement, changes to voter registration requirements, limits on early voting and other restrictive changes to Wisconsin’s election laws adopted by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature.

Plaintiffs argued that the changes were meant to and have the effect of making it more difficult to vote in Wisconsin, especially for minorities, young people, and voters who tend to support Democratic candidates.

The following are the statements of One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director Scot Ross:

“The testimony and evidence provided to the court exposed the intentions behind the myriad of election law changes and revealed the impacts on voters of the five year assault on their rights perpetrated by Gov. Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature.

“Gov. Walker and Republican legislators set out to make it harder for minorities, young people and voters who tend to support Democratic candidates to participate in our elections. As a result, legal voters have been denied the franchise, and will continue to be denied their right to vote unless their suppression schemes are struck down.

“The real voting fraud in Wisconsin has been exposed, and it is these politicians manipulating the rules on voting to give themselves an unfair partisan advantage.

“Their actions have subverted our democracy and violate federal law.”
# # #
One Wisconsin Institute is a non-partisan, progressive research and education organization dedicated to a Wisconsin with equal economic opportunity for all.

Ohio Voter Suppression Law Held Unlawful, Opinion Points Way for Wisconsin Voting Rights

Black folks just love the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution. But will they ever get that
Republican Party-enacted state laws against voting are really
for the greater good of the country?

Thursday, May 26, 2106 is the last day of trial in One Wisconsin v. Nichol, a major voting rights case challenging Republican voter suppression laws in Wisconsin.

Yesterday, a voting rights case in Ohio, signaled what could be a major development for voting rights federal litigation, in favor of the voters against Republican efforts to obstruct voters held in disfavor by Republicans state legislators and governors.

The Ohio case is Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Jon Hustad (Case No. 2:15-cv-1802) heard by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson who issued his 120-page opinion finding a voter suppression law blocking an in-person early voting ritual in Ohio, Golden Week, to be in violation of the United States Constitution and Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Right Act is a law first passed in 1965 to enforce the 15th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Ohio case is heard in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Writes Judge Watson:

EIP [early in-person] voting in homogenous black blocks was 4.316 times higher than homogenous white blocks in 2008… 4.4476 times higher in 2012… usage rates of Golden Week specifically were far higher among African Americans than among whites in both 2008 and 2012… In other words, in 2008, for example, ‘the rate of voting early in person during golden week is three and a half times greater in homogenous black blocks than homogenous white blocks.’

One Wisconsin v. Nichol 

In the Wisconsin voting rights case, a series of voter suppression laws enacted into law by Wisconsin Republicans since 2011 are challenged as violative of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution.

Argue the plaintiffs, One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, as noted at Election Law at Moritz:

Count I: Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Count II: Undue Burdens on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count III: Disparate Treatment of Voters without a Rational Basis in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count IV: Partisan Fencing in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Count V: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Race in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment
Count VI: Abridgment or Denial of the Right to Vote on the Basis of Age in Violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Wisconsin Republicans

Wisconsin Republicans in the politicized Wisconsin Department of Justice argue, (among other points), that because Wisconsin's photo voter ID law for example is popular in their view, it is also constitutional, a bizarre argument used in two federal voting rights cases by Wisconsin DoJ Republicans, (Mal Contends).

Wisconsin Republicans also present protestations at trial by municipal clerks—representing white, Republican suburbs in Milwaukee's hyper-segregated greater urban area—who said  Republican-enacted election laws help the adminstration of elections. The clerks did not explain how or why.

Wisconsin Republicans also argue that the high voter turn-out in the April 5 Presidential Primary disconfirms the voting rights advocates' challenge of GOP-enacted election laws. DoJ Republicans suggest laws designed to suppress the vote of the non-Republican-voting electorate should be judged on their effect on total voter turn-out and not individual classes of voters such as Latinos, blacks, and college students, a talking point rather than a solid legal argument, (MediaMatters). Consider the hypothetical. If most voters were able to pay a $10 fee to vote, would the successful overcoming of the $10 burden mean that such a hypothetical law is not a violation of the 24th Amendment outlawing polling taxes?

The vast minorities of blacks in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee and southeastern Wisconsin, (Wisconsin Dept. of Heath Services), or as Paul Ryan and fellow Republicans like to point out: The "urban" areas.

In Wisconsin, urban means Milwaukee, Kenosha and Racine counties. Along with Dane County, these four counties comprise some one-third of Wisconsin's 2012 presidential election voting total.

The GOP stops enough 'urban' people voting, and they win.

Republican-enacted laws cut early voting from 30 days before Election Day to 12 days, cut the hours during which voters may cast early voting, (in-person, absentee voting), and restrict early voting to one location per municipality, in the name of uniformity. The city of Milwaukee with a population of 599,164 can only have one early voting location, just like the village of Lannon with a population of 1,092. Most blacks in Wisconsin are concentrated in Milwaukee and southeastern Wisconsin, and it's clear what Republicans aim to achieve: Voter suppression.

If U.S. District Judge James Peterson adopts the logic of Judge Watson, it is likely Peterson will find the Republican laws attacking early voting disproportionately affect minority voters, (2013 Wisconsin Act 146), for example.

The bench trial is scheduled to conclude on Thursday, May 26 and is being heard by U.S. District Judge James Peterson.

Wisconsin Voting Rights Trial: GOP's DoJ Is Back to Citing Polls as Constitutional Argument

Wisconsin Republican Party, DoJ Keep Citing Polling in Federal Litigation

At oral argument in the voting rights case, Frank et al v. Walker et al (No.: 14-2058), heard at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in August 2014, Wisconsin DoJ Assistant Attorney General Clayton Kawski argued Wisconsin's restrictive photo voter ID is constitutional because results of a polling question on voter ID, (Marquette University Law School), showed more Wisconsin citizens favored voter ID than opposed it, (14-2058, Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker oral argument, civil,  09/12/2014) (2-minute, 34-second mark).

This argument on voting restrictions' constitutionality conditioned on polling numbers was ridiculed by the Seventh Circuit's three-judge panel.

"What conceivable relevance is a polling number to this litigation?," said Judge Frank Easterbrook, a voting rights opponent and author of the opinion upholding Wisconsin's photo voter ID law.

Seconds later after Judge John Tinder asked Clayton Kawski if popular laws can be unconstitutional, Kawski was forced to backtrack and admit the irrelevance of a polling figure to the constitutional questions.

One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol 

The polling argument today is back at another Wisconsin voting rights trial, One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324).

Notes Scott Ross, One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director on Facebook: 

So on day five of our vote trial, I have had my fav moment. The defense, [the Wisconsin DoJ], was asking our expert witness about her research on the absence of voter fraud in Wisconsin elections and noted 'polls show people support voter ID.' Our attorney came back with 'polls show some people believe our president is a Muslim,'

Polling figures as the basis for the constitutionality of laws designed to destroy the vote.

Now, that's a novel argument, but good enough for the Republican Party of Wisconsin and its adjunct operation in the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice.

Why is the Republican Party's DoJ advancing this discredited argument?

Scott Walker, Wisconsin Republicans Exposed as Frauds at Voting Rights Trial

A long-time and now-ex Fitchburg, Wisconsin chief election inspector voted in the Wisconsin Spring Election and Presidential Preference election held on April 5, 2016.

Al Potts resigned from the contract position because he wanted no part of perpetuating a fraud on voters through the imposition of Scott Walker and the Republicans' photo voter ID law because the law is intended to suppress voters and render voting as burdensome a process as possible, (Woodward Communications, Inc.).

After exchanging pleasantries with his former colleagues on April 5, Potts had to produce an acceptable photo voter ID to prove he really was Al Potts, a political moderate active in municipal and civic politics, but publicly apolitical in state and national politics.

Potts and voting rights advocates have been proven correct in their assessment of the Republican-enacted law which was found constitutional by Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in February 2104, and in federal court where a challenge to the law failed on a five-to-five vote at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in late 2104, (Sommerhauser, WISC-TV), (Mal Contends).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to grant cert challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's voter ID law as a qualification to vote in March 2015, (USA Today).

A federal trial that began May 16, 2106, (One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol), for the first time introduces evidence of the intent of Republicans to use photo voter ID to block voters by citing the words of Republican legislators, particularly citing voiced intent to frustrate and destroy the vote in "Milwaukee" and on "college campuses" to help win elections for Republicans, (Sneed, TPM; Opoien, The Capital Times).

A motion to hear testimony, evidence and exhibits citing the public and private words of Republican lawmakers to use the voter ID law to win elections by blocking disfavored voters was granted by U.S. District Judge James Peterson on May 13.

On May 16, testimony by one witness, former Republican staffer Todd Allbaugh, offered what appears to be just the beginning of devastating evidence against Wisconsin Republicans' illegal and outlandish intent at the trial.

Al Potts joins voting rights activists, and Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in sounding the alarm about Wisconsin Republicans' destroying votes in Republicans' "efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," (Posner, Frank v. Walker).

The bench trial is scheduled to end on Thursday, May 26, 2016, (One Wisconsin Institute, Inc., et al v. Nichol, et al, p.1).

Wisconsin Voting Rights Trial: Ex-GOP Staffer Names Republican Senators Who Cheered Voter Suppression

"The former staffer to a Wisconsin state Republican senator who went public last month with accusations that the state's voter ID law was passed by GOPers looking for a political advantage elaborated on the claims in federal court Monday and identified the previously unnamed legislators he said were gleeful over the law."

Todd Allbaugh, testifying in a case challenging the law, named then-Sens. Mary Lazich, Glenn Grothman, Leah Vukmir and Randy Hopper as being 'giddy' in a 2011 private caucus meeting about passing the bill," (Journal Sentinel), reports Tierney Sneed, TPM. See also Opoien, The Capital Times.

The expected two-week trial, (One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)), began today and is expected to focus attention on Republican Party efforts to suppress as many perceived non-Republican voters as possible through a variety of changes to election law, supported by Republicans and only Republicans against unanimous Democratic Party and voting rights activists' opposition.

Though national political chatter often speaks of a crack in Republican Party unity, stopping non-Republican voters from voting is universally acclaimed, and supporting voting suppression is part of the price of admission to Republican politics.

U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson is presiding over the One Wisconsin bench trial.

The Democratic Party remains the party of voting rights, not a particularly popular position in the American political culture.

Earlier this month, Wisconsin's Democratic congressional delegation requested a U.S. DoJ review of the Wisconsin Voter ID law and other voter suppression tactics enacted into law by Wisconsin Republicans since 2011, (Mal Contends).

Wisconsin Voting Rights Plaintiffs Seek to Admit Former Senators' Statements at Trial

Plaintiffs in the federal voting rights case, One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)) filed a motion on May 29 to introduce several public statements of two former Wisconsin state senators.

The statements by former State Senator Dale Schultz, and Wisconsin Congressman and former State Senator Glenn Grothman are argued to be relevant to the Voting Rights Act claims made in this case because they establish racial appeals and objectives to suppress voting of ethnic groups, among other objectives demonstrating a racial animus by laws enacted with intent by a legislative body.

Reads one point in the motion:

Plaintiffs seek to introduce a video and transcript (the latter of which is attached as Exhibit 5) of an April 5, 2016 interview in which Rep. Grothman, when asked about the fact that Republicans have not been able to win presidential races in Wisconsin since 1984, said, 'Well, I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up and now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.' (p.3)

Much of the motion is an legal evidentiary argument addressing exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The federal trial is expected to begin in the coming weeks.

The pre-trial motion follows a letter sent by Wisconsin’s Democratic congressional delegation urging the "Justice Department to conduct a review of Wisconsin’s potentially discriminatory voting requirements to determine whether they are consistent with the Voting Rights Act and federal constitutional protections for the right to vote," (Pocan, Press Release) (Mal Contends).