Supreme Court turns away challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law
 

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Wisconsin's voter identification law, after having blocked the state from requiring photo IDs in November's general election. 

The justices' action means the state is free to impose the voter ID requirement in future elections, and is further evidence that the court put the law on hold last year only because the election was close at hand and absentee ballots already had been mailed with no notification of the need to present photo IDs.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...latestnews

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Not that I really have a problem with needing ID I just hope it's not difficult or expensive to get the ID.

---

I'm fine with voter identification laws -- so long as, when you register to vote you are issued a photo identification card at no cost.  And as long as those without photo identification can obtain such identification at their place of voting (again, free of charge) on the day of the election (as long as they sign some affidavit along with a piece of mail or something similar proving their identity)

 

What's accepted as photo ID is different in many places.  Some places for instance won't let you use a Student ID.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

A voter's ID doesn't do anything, we need voter licenses.

---

My Idea, it that you have to renew your registration every 4 years just like you have to renew your DL's every 5 years or so.

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

A voter's ID doesn't do anything, we need voter licenses.

I don't agree with needing a license to vote. That has to be unconstitutional I'd have to think. 

---

My Idea, it that you have to renew your registration every 4 years just like you have to renew your DL's every 5 years or so.

What would be the purpose of a renewal? 

---

I don't agree with needing a license to vote. That has to be unconstitutional I'd have to think. 

 

Not at all, there's no constitutional right to vote. The constitution simply protects minorities from being prohibited to vote based upon race, gender, ethnic background, religion and financial status. But the idea that a qualifier other than citizenship would be unconstitutional isn't correct. We already have qualifiers on voting, for example felons are not allowed to vote. I'd prefer an earned privilege to participate in elections, said privilege should be equally offered to all citizens.

 

An ID is just trying to verify you're not cast a fraudulent vote no one should be against that. We have to many ignorant votes that's the real problem, people voting because it's a team sport.

---

Not at all, there's no constitutional right to vote. The constitution simply protects minorities from being prohibited to vote based upon race, gender, ethnic background, religion and financial status. But the idea that a qualifier other than citizenship would be unconstitutional isn't correct. We already have qualifiers on voting, for example felons are not allowed to vote. I'd prefer an earned privilege to participate in elections, said privilege should be equally offered to all citizens.

 

An ID is just trying to verify you're not cast a fraudulent vote no one should be against that. We have to many ignorant votes that's the real problem, people voting because it's a team sport.

It seems to be a solution that doesn't exist. It's a witch hunt. Aside from that, I don't have a problem with if it's a state mandated thing. 

 

You are proposing actually taking rights (as currently interpreted) away from people. You have to see how that clashes with a libertarian view point of liberty for all. I would however, not care as long as it's not based on religion or ideology at all but simply an understanding of the process. You can't test on knowledge or biases as that would be discrimination. 

---

Actually, there's no guarantee that the states can't prohibit you from voting on the basis of religion.  All that's stated in the constitution is that the states shall not deny the right to vote on the basis of color, race, or previous servitude.  The 19th amendment expanded this to basis of gender.  26th adds "on account of age' for those over the age of 18.


I mean congress can't establish an official religion, and they can't deny you the right to practice.  But nowhere does it state that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis thereof.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Actually, there's no guarantee that the states can't prohibit you from voting on the basis of religion.  All that's stated in the constitution is that the states shall not deny the right to vote on the basis of color, race, or previous servitude.  The 19th amendment expanded this to basis of gender.  26th adds "on account of age' for those over the age of 18.

I mean congress can't establish an official religion, and they can't deny you the right to practice.  But nowhere does it state that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis thereof.

 

meh, anti-discrimination laws make it unimaginable that restriction based on religion could hold up in court. For example if they passed a law saying muslims could not vote in federal elections I'd expect that to be found unconstitutional.

---

meh, anti-discrimination laws make it unimaginable that restriction based on religion could hold up in court. For example if they passed a law saying muslims could not vote in federal elections I'd expect that to be found unconstitutional.

 

And I suspect that restriction using voting licenses would similarly not hold up in court.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And I suspect that restriction using voting licenses would similarly not hold up in court.

 

Based on what? There's nothing to support said ruling, no precedent that would prohibit a qualifier for participation in elections, so long as race, gender, ethnicity, religion or financial status wasn't a factor.

 

There's plenty of precedent that religion is a protected minority however.

---

Based on what? There's nothing to support said ruling, no precedent that would prohibit a qualifier for participation in elections, so long as race, gender, ethnicity, religion or financial status wasn't a factor.

 

There's plenty of precedent that religion is a protected minority however.

 

That's the deal with precedent. There is always a first time and this would be the case the courts would set it.

---

That's the deal with precedent. There is always a first time and this would be the case the courts would set it.

 

sure they could do that, but law isn't just interpreted out of thin air, I'd be curious to know what legal standing they would set that precedent on. If anything there is a strong precedent that voting is subject to qualifiers such as the example of prohibiting felons from voting (something I'd support over turning).

---

Based on what? There's nothing to support said ruling, no precedent that would prohibit a qualifier for participation in elections, so long as race, gender, ethnicity, religion or financial status wasn't a factor.

 

There's plenty of precedent that religion is a protected minority however.

Based on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Based on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

 

Which prohibits racial discrimination and has later included, ethnicity, gender and financial status. But in no way shape or form does it prohibit qualifiers.

---

Which prohibits racial discrimination and has later included, ethnicity, gender and financial status. But in no way shape or form does it prohibit qualifiers.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ct+of+1965

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ct+of+1965

 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

 

 

Again there is no precedent to treat all qualifiers as unconstitutional only those that exclude a party due to the already clarified protected minority statuses.

---

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

 

 

Again there is no precedent to treat all qualifiers as unconstitutional only those that exclude a party due to the already clarified protected minority statuses.

 

 

 

c) The phrase "test or device" shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite forvoting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret anymatter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3)possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters ormembers of any other class.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.