Wisconsin judge blocks GOP voter-suppression scheme

All over the country these days, Republican efforts to guard against the wrong people voting in elections — like minorities and college students and other undesirables — are taking the form of all manner of new laws and restrictions.

The supposed justification for these voter-suppression measures is the claim that voter fraud is rampant. The truth, however, is that such fraud is as rare as hen’s teeth, as we see HERE. Indeed, most of the people  hauled off to the pokey for voter fraud in recent years have been Republicans — like the secretary of state in Indiana, who was convicted just last month on six felony counts.

Meanwhile, the nefarious new laws are being challenged in various federal and state courts. And now, a state judge in Wisconsin has put a TEMPORARY HOLD on a Republican scheme that amounts to a latter-day version of the poll taxes that were common in the South in the Jim Crow era:

A Dane County judge has granted a temporary injunction against Wisconsin’s new voter identification law, which he called “the single most restrictive voter eligibility law” in the country.

Circuit Judge David Flanagan’s ruling Tuesday means the voter ID requirement would not apply for the April 3 presidential primary and local general election.

A spokesman for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the state likely would appeal, and other state election officials pointed out that other aspects of the law will remain in effect, such as having to sign a poll list.

The NAACP’s Milwaukee branch and immigration and worker rights group Voces de la Frontera had sued over the law last year. A trial on whether to grant a permanent injunction is scheduled for April 16.

In granting the injunction, Flanagan found that the plaintiffs likely would succeed at trial and would suffer irreparable harm without the court’s inter vention.




  1. wilson

    You must be kidding, but of course a brain dead lefty geezer like you must be serious.
    God Bless America!

    “Nearly four months before he signed off on the poorly edited order granting a temporary injunction against Wisconsin’s new voter identification law, Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan scribbled his name on another important legal document:

    A petition urging the recall of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

    Walker signed the voter ID legislation last year and is a defendant in the current case.

    “The very fact that Dane County Judge David Flanagan signed a petition to recall Governor Walker calls (Tuesday’s) court proceedings regarding Wisconsin’s voter ID law into question,” said Republican Party spokesman Ben Sparks in a statement.

    he most notable is Flanagan’s reference to “Justice William Scalia.” That would be U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Several sentences in the decision are garbled.

    Flanagan refers to the wrong section of the state Constitution when he says it “sets forth explicitly the requirement for eligibility to vote, Art. I, Sect. 2 (4).”

    The article and section cited by Flanagan deals, instead, with the prohibition of slavery. He meant to refer to Article III.

    Cullen Werwie, spokesman for the governor, took note of the discrepancies: “Our legal team is still trying to locate Justice William Scalia.”

  2. Voter ID and Poll Tax are one in the same.

  3. Carol Foster

    If only the far right Republicans could go back far enough in our history, they could count minorities as partial men as did the Constiitution. Between that and polls taxes, it would be much simplier to control who could vote and who could hold office. Only property owning older white folks with no women or those unlanded allowed in the polling booths come election day.
    A regular Republican utopia!
    We need better gun control laws in this country to prevent Republicans from shooting themselves in the foot so often that it’s painful for the rest of us to look at anymore.

  4. expdoc


    Show me any Republican party information that says they want to count minorities as partial men.

    In fact, don’t be so racist. The Democrat pablum about disenfranchised minority voters supposes that only minorities are poor. Really? They must really believe you are stupid, you should be offended.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you need an ID to simply function in society, including qualifying for many government programs.


  5. Carol Foster

    If you know American history, than you know a slave holder could send several of those he owned to take his place if called to duty by the government. They were counted, as I recall, as being 2/3 a person.
    I say this related to history which I find so many Tea Party/Republicans bring up often and love to quote the Founding Fathers as they tell us we need to go back in time and do as they did long ago for this nation to be on the right path once more. Maybe, just maybe, those who preach that doctrine don’t have a very good memory.
    Not all our history is grand and glorius so it’s important we don’t suggest some of the worst of it needs repeating.
    When you note how difficult it is to even get registered voters to the polls on election day, it makes no sense to try to say there’s a great deal of voter fraud, especially in Wisconsin of all places. Machesney Park in the past has turned out roughly 12% for some elections, so should be waste our time changing the rules because someone suggests there could be voter fraud among the 12%? Do you even know what it costs to enact new laws? I can tell you it isn’t .99cents and lawyers get rich working for the gov to do each and everyone of them.
    Talk about a waste of time and money, Wisconsin really knows how to do it!

  6. expdoc

    I know it costs alot more to enact new laws when liberal judges in Dane County try to slap an injunction on every move the lawfully elected Republican majority enacts.

  7. expdoc

    Two more things:

    1) You still haven’t substantiated your ridiculous claim that Republicans want to count minorities as partial men.

    2) If voter turnout is very low, the potential impact of voter fraud is HIGHER not lower.

  8. doc: Courts overturn laws all the time. What does the fact that the Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature were “lawfully elected” have to do with it? That’s just silly. Have you ever made note of lawful elections of Democrats who have passed laws that were overturned by the courts?

    And I love your little “Dane County” bird whistle to rouse the right-wing yahoos. Jeez! The damn judge is from Madison! He’s probably one of them commie types!

    Of course, the ultimate issue here is the Republican myth that voter fraud is rampant. That’s an utter falsehood. An investigation of fraud allegations in Wisconsin in 2004 led to the prosecution of 0.0007 percent of voters. Nationally, voter fraud cases are less common than cows jumping over the moon.

    This is all just a matter of Republicans figuring they’ll have a better chance of winning elections if they discourage — if not actually bar — the wrong people from voting. It’s downright un-American.

  9. expdoc

    Random thoughts:

    1) You mean the damn judge who signed the recall Walker petition and then ruled on the case with Walker listed as a defendant anyway?…..

    2) “Led to the prosecution of” does not exclude voter fraud. It is hard to prove fraud when you don’t have to show any ID to prove who you are..

    3) What was the margin of victory again for GWB in Florida over Gore?

    40 If people are allowed to vote illegally in any way, shape or form then that disenfranchises every other legitimate voter.

  10. expdoc

    I am sure you wanted to hear what Scott Walker himself has to say on this topic:


    Requiring a photo ID to vote is a common-sense reform that protects the integrity of our elections. Ensuring the integrity of the ballot box is an integral part of holding free, open and fair elections.

    Photo IDs are already required to buy cold medicine, board a plane, cash a check and apply for public assistance.

    Voting is much more important than any of these items – which is precisely why this law is a reasonable method to ensure and promote confidence in the integrity of our elections.

    Before our voter ID law, individuals were merely required to state who they were in order to vote. Not only did this create opportunities for voter fraud, it left many to question whether they could trust the overall integrity of our elections.

    The bill that we signed simply closes the window on many types of fraud by ensuring that individuals establish their identity before voting.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of requiring photo IDs to vote. While it is vitally important to ensure that the laws we have on the books are constitutional, that is not going on now in Wisconsin.

    While a vocal minority may disagree with our common-sense policy position, that doesn’t change the fact that the temporary injunction issued by the Dane County Circuit Court will be overturned by a higher court, and ultimately the voter ID law will be upheld.

    Aside from the legal debate about this issue, it’s important to look at the practical, real-world application of how photo ID works. We’ve already had an election in Wisconsin that required individuals to show photo ID to vote, and the election was successful.

    In fact, The Associated Press’ headline the day after the first election where photo IDs were required read, “The first elections under Wisconsin’s new photo identification law went off relatively smoothly. . . . ”

    We’ve already run an election in Wisconsin where a photo ID requirement has worked, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared it constitutional, it is a common-sense method to protect the integrity of our electoral system and it has been successfully implemented in states all across the nation.

    The time has come to accept the fact that I worked hard to lawfully and constitutionally implement a law that I campaigned on and to move on.

    There are many pressing issues facing our state; rehashing and litigating voter ID at the taxpayers’ expense isn’t one of them.

  11. Milton Waddams

    Actually Carol, it was 3/5. That’s why it was called the three fifths compromise. It was for the purposes of apportionment of taxes and representation. I don’t know what you are referring to about a slave owner sending a slave in his place for somehting. That wasn’t in any of my American history books, nor could I find any mention of it in a quick search.

  12. wilson

    Carol doesn’t need to read, she lives in her own little world of make believe.
    Thank goodness we have “Justice William Scalia” serving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *