State Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Voter ID Cases

The high court's decisions mean that the appeals court will hear the cases first. A trial that started today will continue.

The state Supreme Court Monday refused to hear Voter ID cases stemming from suits brought by two different plaintiffs.

Justices issued one-page opinions on each of the lawsuits from the Milwaukee NAACP and the , but declined to comment on why they refuse to hear either one, according to WisPolitics.com.

A temporary injunction was issued first by one Dane County judge and a . There is a trial that started today and now will proceed based on lawsuits filed by the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera. Both groups claim the law, which requires voters to show a photo ID before they can cast a ballot, disenfranchises minorities, the elderly, the disabled and students among others.

The state Department of Justice has appealed both injunctions, and it was the appellate court that asked the Supreme Court to review the cases. Now that the state's high court has refused to hear either case, both suits are back under the appeals court's jurisdiction.

Adam Wienieski April 17, 2012 at 03:51 AM
@Bren, I need a driver's license, a criminal background check and a 48 hour waiting period every time I purchase a constitutionally protected firearm. Surely you've seen the video where a young white guy walks into Eric Holders Washinton DC polling place, claims to be him and they practically fall over each other to hand him the US Attorney Generals ballot? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot You have no clue how much voter fraud there is because nobody is even trying to stop it let alone begin to quantify the total disenfranchisement.
The Big Cat April 17, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Amen. It is obvious why Democrats oppose this law. Voter fraud is an important part of their agenda to winning elections.
Adam Wienieski April 17, 2012 at 04:05 AM
Careful Moroninthemist, name calling is school yard bully behavior.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:18 AM
@Bren - Where in the Constitutional right to bear arms does it state that such a right is selective and not privy to all citizens, as I'm having problems finding such language?
Craig April 17, 2012 at 04:23 AM
Bren your numbers are wrong. It was far more than 4, the GAB may have claimed 4. Locally we have a school board member who signed their name with an alias, and also signed Darlings recall with the same alias ( and did not live in Darling's district ) The GAB did not catch this.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:23 AM
@Bren - Apparently, you missed one of Schmitz's earlier comments over on another board wherein he dismissed Politifact's legitimacy. Your girl Rachel Maddow also has issues with Politifact's rating system. I'm surprised that you, the purveyor of conducting independent research, would hold in such high regard the assessments conducted by Politifact. I though that you were more independent than that.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:26 AM
@Bren - Neither is the Daily Kos, but that hasn't stopped you from citing that propagandist rag time and again here on the Patch. Funny how right-wing blogs are trash, while the left-wing blogs are acceptable sources of information to you. Your hypocrisy is once again showing.
Craig April 17, 2012 at 04:26 AM
Bren: I should have an ID to buy a firearm? What if I need it for protection but can't afford to pay for an ID also? The right to bear arms is a right- just like voting is a right. Violent felons can not buy a firearm and are not supposed to vote, but we only verify their ID for firearm purchases?
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:37 AM
@Bren - 1) The GAB didn't give much scrutiny to the petition signatures because Walker chose not to challenge them. 2) The $7M figure included the cost of additional security that was necessary during the Capitol 'occupation.' 3) Curbs on public sector union privileges were necessary in order to effectuate the promise of assisting local units of government in containing their budgets given reduced state assistance and under the promised and delivered property tax freeze legislation. 4) Running fake candidates is just as legal as these frivolous recalls are, not to mention that such a tactic was heavily used by the Democrats in the past. But you'd know all this if in fact you were 'politically current,' wouldn't you? Try again.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:39 AM
No surprises here - I personally witnessed such voter fraud while attending UW-Whitewater. My reports to the local police were dismissed without investigation.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:46 AM
@Bren - No one is trying to take away anyone's right - we merely want to preserve the integrity of our elections. You like to assert the premise that a lack of prosecutions conclusively proves that voter fraud doesn't exist, correct? So, how many complaints of disenfranchisement were there during this February's primary elections when Voter ID legislation was in effect? In fact, I can't find a single report of a complaint being made to the GAB claiming disenfranchisement, can you? So, using your own logic, I guess that conclusively proves that Voter ID does not cause voter disenfranchisement. Case closed.
Luke April 17, 2012 at 04:52 AM
The voting rights of the majority are taken away in a close election by the fraud of the minority.
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 04:53 AM
@Bren - There was a lot of talk of bussing in public sector union sympathizers from Ohio and other states and housing them for the required 28 day residency requirement for the sole purpose of having them vote in our recall elections. Of course, such an act would still constitute a violation of the intent element of our elector qualification statute, but that didn't stop the strategy from being discussed on many leftist facebook pages or county Democratic Party meetings. If you were 'politically current,' then surely you would have been aware of such situation. Cheers!
James R Hoffa April 17, 2012 at 05:02 AM
The state Supreme Court's failure to grant cert on a request made by the Court of Appeals without providing a legal reason for such a denial is an interesting situation indeed - especially where trial level injunctions are in effect and prominent elections are pending. It would appear that the Supreme Court is going to great lengths in an attempt to appear to remain politically impartial and unbiased. Instead of worrying about their public image, the Supreme Court should just suck it up and do its job already!
dpatric2 April 17, 2012 at 01:01 PM
With the news that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to take up the Voter ID Law case, now the court process will have to play out. This is good. The consideration of the court cases, all the way through the process of appeal, will highlight the parts of this law that are flawed. Many good amendments were ignored by the legislature to fix this law when it was considered in both the Senate and Assembly sessions. Tax money could have been saved if legislators would have passed a good Voter ID law instead of the voter suppression law that we ended up with. Soon they will have to consider legislation to fix it. More honest pragmatic leaders would have truly collaborated and found the compromises that would have helped all of us to collectively deal with this issue and all the REAL issues facing this state. I urge Wisconsin citizens to elect such leaders.
Lexi Noble April 17, 2012 at 01:34 PM
If photo ID's are being issued free of charge, then why not issue them on the same day you register to vote? This way the "argument" can't be made that anyone requiring a photo ID (if they don't have one already) has no means of transportation to get one. It used to be, in order to register you had to bring a utility bill with your name/ address on it...unless this has changed too. Does anybody else find this whole process a little odd, since when can a judge over ride what our sitting government officials and the citizens of this state have voted for? If this is any indication of what's to come, then what is the purpose of having referendums or voting? It really won't matter what we the citizens want because we now know that the judges sitting in Dane County have the authority to overturn the outcome of the vote anyways...And doesn't anybody also find this odd that one of these judges also signed the recall for Gov. Walker...I always thought they were supposed to be impartial, I guess that's changed too...
Steve ® April 17, 2012 at 01:40 PM
No voter ID bidges!!!! Vote early for Walker vote often for Walker!
Steve ® April 17, 2012 at 01:44 PM
I hand't noticed it stopped.
Denis Greatens April 17, 2012 at 01:49 PM
What's a "women children"?
Denis Greatens April 17, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Mornin, Acorn is not gone, just renamed.
Randy1949 April 17, 2012 at 03:58 PM
@Lexi Noble -- I find it a little bit odd that it seems to be easier to register than to actually vote. Presumably when you register you satisfy both the identity and residence requirements at that time. Now, with the requirement of showing a birth certificate to obtain the photo ID, we're asking people to prove US birth yet again. I will also point out that a birth certificate doesn't really prove you are whom you claim to be, since I have changed greatly in appearance since 1949. An amendment allowing people who have difficulty locating and obtaining a birth certificate to prove their citizenship with alternate means, especially in the case of previously registered voters, would have solved a lot of problems, as would a voter photo ID issued at the time of registration. As for judges overriding legislation -- that's how our three branches of government work. When our legislators pass laws that contravene our state constitution, it's up to the judiciary to tell them to go back and get it right.
Randy1949 April 17, 2012 at 04:07 PM
@Kevin Presser -- An American citizen does lose the right to possess a firearm under certain conditions. Purchasing a firearm is akin to registering to vote, at which time you have to prove a number of things, such as age, residence, lack of felony convictions . . . I have never bought a gun, but does the purchase require a specific form of photo ID where one had to prove US citizenship with a birth certificate?
Randy1949 April 17, 2012 at 04:23 PM
@JRH -- As far as I know, no cases of disenfranchisement were reported during the February elections (which were local and of low turnout) however, there was one report of two previously registered voters turned away for not having proper ID during the recently primary. This happened at a polling place in western Waukesha County, and if the poll workers are so poorly trained that they haven't been informed of the current injunction on the Voter ID law, then how can we trust that they will be well-trained enough to know which forms of Voter ID are acceptable if it is reinstated?
Randy1949 April 17, 2012 at 04:33 PM
@dpatric2 -- Here is an interesting list of the proposed amendments to the Voter ID bill, including the reinstatement of vouching and free secondary documents (birth certificates) in addition to the free ID cards. http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=33534 "Senate Democrats spent over nine hours proposing amendments to the Voter Identification Bill (AB-7) Tuesday, only to have Sen. Joe Leibham (R-Sheboygan) motion to table each amendment. Each motion passed along party lines, and all of the Democrats' amendments were tabled without debate from Senate Republicans."
Keith Schmitz April 18, 2012 at 03:18 AM
So Lexi, then you are against the US Supreme Court overturning the Affordable Health Care Act or picking George Bush president? I don't recall any Republican running on passing voter ID.
Keith Schmitz April 18, 2012 at 03:20 AM
Again with the dumb arguments over voter ID vs something else. We have abundant proof that gun laws have been violated, and hardly any in regards to voter ID. In fact on that basis, we should even be providing conceal carry.
Robert Richardson April 18, 2012 at 07:13 AM
You are RIGHT! I own a house and I have to prove my residence and eligibility to vote nearly every 4 years. It's a pain but I would rather have it than have someone who can't legally vote decide my destiny!
Robert Richardson April 18, 2012 at 07:18 AM
Can i join you Steve? He dropped my property taxes 5% last year!
Randy1949 April 18, 2012 at 03:29 PM
@Robert Richardson -- Really? You have to re-register every four years? You must move a lot. I registered in my current polling place back in 1971 and haven't had to since.
John Williams April 18, 2012 at 05:12 PM
@Randy1949 -- Your position holds merit for those people. However I am not refering to those individuals. There were a couple people used as examples by the NAACP, one being an older black man who was a disabled veteran, yet he was being made to jump through hoops to get his free ID. First he applied for a social security card, where he was informed that he needed a birth certificate. Then when he got his birth certificate found that it had his birthname (the name his mother gave him) and that he did not choose to use that name (he has been using an alias his whole life!). At some point he had to have either/both a birth certificate and/or a social security card, otherwise he would not have been able to serve in the military and/or collect disability payments. He does not fall into your rapidly vanishing group. The other example given was a single mother from Mississippi who could not locate her birth certificate because of fire/flood issues. explain then how she was able to obtain benefits here in wisconsin to support herself and her 7 children, one of which is getting social security disability every month, if she has never had any form of identification in the form of a birth certificate or a social security card? Im a democrat and a liberal, and I firmly believe in verified ID. Heck I also think everyone should have a DNA sample on file with their prints and current photo! Think how quickly all those non supported babies would have their daddies found!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something