T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Wow, finally there is an example.

Which was caught, and is being prosecuted under existing laws. Yay.

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport

BSmack wrote:

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport

That explains it. The whole city of Bridgeport is a criminal conspiracy.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections.

In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal.

Both Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.

The Supreme Court's order reverses a trend established by the justices in two other cases from Ohio and North Carolina, in which they allowed voting restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures to take effect.

In all three cases, however, it appeared the court wanted to respect changes made by elected officials without confusing or disenfranchising voters.

The court gave no reason for its action, as is routine for such emergency orders. But Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court cannot block an appeals court ruling unless the lower court "clearly and demonstrably erred in its application of accepted standards."

In Wisconsin, the state requires voters to produce photo ID at the polls based on a 2011 law that was rolled out in time for low-turnout primaries the following year. Because of early problems, a state court blocked further use of the law.

Earlier this year, a federal district judge ruled the law unconstitutional because it disproportionately affected black and Hispanic residents. He also said the rationale for the law -- voters impersonating others at the polls -- was virtually non-existent.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision last month, in part because of last-minute changes made by state officials to ease the burden on those lacking the proper ID. The full appeals court then deadlocked 5-5 on whether to reconsider the issue, thereby keeping the photo ID rule in place.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project, a civil rights group, contend that the law jeopardizes the votes of some 300,000 residents who lack the proper ID — particularly racial minorities, seniors, students and people with disabilities.

Imposing the photo ID requirement "will cause chaos at the polls and will disenfranchise many thousands of Wisconsin voters," they argued in their petition to the Supreme Court. The groups said the justices should block the law for now and grant one of the cases challenging photo ID for a full hearing and decision.

State officials argued that they had been implementing the photo ID rule since early September. "Plaintiffs are asking this court to pinball state and local election officials between enforcing and not enforcing the law with November elections less than four weeks away," their brief said. "Voters would get the pinball treatment, too."

In the other two recent voting-rights cases, the Supreme Court acted differently:

• It allowed Ohio officials to eliminate one of five weeks set aside for early voting, as well as some evening and Sunday hours.

• It allowed North Carolina officials to eliminate same-day voter registration and discount votes cast mistakenly in the wrong precincts. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from that ruling.

All three cases are part of a broader national challenge by groups aligned with Democrats and minorities against laws passed by Republican legislatures that tighten voting procedures. Other cases are pending in Texas and Arkansas. Most face continued court battles that ultimately could be heard by the Supreme Court and decided on their broader merits.

Papa Willie wrote:I'm always in favor of less laws, but seriously - why is it such a fucking monumental problem just to show your driver's license to vote - or some valid ID? I mean - I know it's harder for criminals to get such things, but still...

the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state.

Left Seater wrote:Typical left leaning reply of nothing to see here.

Nevermind 40,000 duplicate voter registrations.

Screw_Michigan wrote:None of those are constitutionally protected rights, numbnuts. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

Screw_Michigan wrote:None of those are constitutionally protected rights, numbnuts. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

Ace wrote:Anything to keep the darkies from voting, right 'pubs?