A federal trial scheduled to begin Monday in Wisconsin could set the stage for legal challenges in a number of states to laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Wisconsin’s photo voter ID law has been on hold since Dane County judge declared it unconstitutional soon after it passed in 2011.
Supporters say the law helps combat voter fraud. Opponents say it disenfranchises poor and minority voters who are less likely to have state-issued identification.
The trial involves a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a now-deceased Wisconsin woman who was born at home in Jackson, Tenn., in 1935 and never received a birth certificate. Her daughter says that without a birth certificate, Bettye Jones had to fight for months to get a state ID to vote.
Here are the plaintiffs:
BETTYE JONES; LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN; CROSS LUTHERAN CHURCH; MILWAUKEE AREA LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO; and WISCONSIN LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS EDUCATION FUND
The complaint is that the law will burden African American and Latino voters disproportionately.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices, will have its day in court when a judge hears a challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law. The Advancement Project and pro bono counsel from the firm Arnold & Porter will argue against the requirement, implemented in 2011, on Nov. 4.
“After Shelby, Section 2 provides one of the last lines of defense against legislatures that would disenfranchise voters of color,” said Advancement Project co-director Penda Hair. “Yet we are witnessing the greatest assault on voting rights in decades.”
According to the Advancement Project, evidence shows that 28,000, or 16 percent, of African-Americans in the state do not have a driver’s license or state ID, compared to 9.3 percent of whites.
h/t commenter Omnes Omnibus
aimai
Its just obscene that this comes down to a single plaintiff type case rather than a class action suit on behalf of everyone who doesn’t have the required ID at the get go. Also I’m just really, really, really, angry that we can’t demand the government issue everyone a single, lifetime, always good ID card for both registering and voting (babies at birth and new citizens when they become new citizens) because the right wing lunatics would think it was a new “mark of the beast” or something.
Cervantes
Thanks, Kay.
Incidentally, do you know of sustained local campaigns designed to help voters obtain photo IDs (or whatever magic talisman is needed at the voting booth)? If so, how are those campaigns faring?
Kay
@Cervantes:
I don’t, I’m sorry. I have looked, too.
c u n d gulag
“The complaint is that the law will burden African American and Latino voters disproportionately.”
Uhm…
Sorry, folks – feature, NOT bug!
And, that it might impact women voters, like in Texas – BONUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IowaOldLady
For a while it seemed to me that voter suppression could be directed against African Americans and Hispanics sometimes as simply as providing fewer voting machines in some neighborhoods. But I wondered how the Rs were going to deal with women who lived among them. Now I see.
ruemara
I read that as lethal challenges. May FSM bless us with my misreading being correct.
gene108
@c u n d gulag:
I’ve always wondered how judges interpret the 15th Amendment in these sorts of cases. I’ve never heard the 15th Amendment be used as a reason to justify or negate voting rights cases, despite people of certain races getting hurt more than others.
I know from whatever history I’ve read judges in the 19th century had a pretty lax view towards the 15th Amendment because they were racist and didn’t want blacks to get too uppity.
From that history, I’m surprised judges aren’t more self aware about how voting laws can be rigged to hurt certain races disproportionately.
Hal
It’s absurd that there isn’t a much larger burden of proof required in passing these laws. How much voter fraud is there in the first place to justify tightening and expanding requirements to vote? If you cannot show a clear pattern of voter fraud that would greatly impact fair elections, than you simply should not be able to restrict voting rights. It should be much harder to pass these laws than simply running around screaming about voter fraud and stolen elections with absolutely zero proof.
beth
@aimai: Yeah seriously. What info would an id card have that the government already doesn’t have?
Southern Beale
Meanwhile, this just in from Texas:
It’s OK though, he’s just a Democrat. Who cares what Democrats think? Especially in Texas!
shelly
Sigh. When State Legislature’s insist on ramming thru new voter ID laws, shouldn’t they be required to provide actual evidence of voter fraud? Bedtime stories aren’t enough.
negative 1
@Cervantes: If you could find one it would be immediately disallowed for working too well.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: I don’t agree on the class action question. A success in a class action suit would have no different result than success in this suit. OTOH if the the plaintiff’s lose in this case, other potential plaintiffs could still file their own individual suits based on their facts. Or someone could file a suit in the Western District of Wisconsin. If there was a loss in a class action suit, any member of the class would be bound by the result unless they specifically opted out.
There is no upside to a class action and a big downside. Assuming the goal of the litigation is to get the law tossed out.
Yatsuno
@shelly: Evidence? They don’t need no stinking evidence! They can FEEL it’s happening! Why, every time one of those shifty brown fellers votes it should be immediately challenged! If you can’t see the obvious fraud happening you’re just an unserious hippie.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cervantes: A number of groups in Wisconsin were planning to spend a lot of time and effort getting people IDs. Several of the plaintiff’s in this suit are there because they “must now divert substantial resources and attention from other critical missions to deal with the adverse impacts of Act 23 on its members and constituents, and to assist them in attempting to surmount the hurdles to voting imposed by Act 23.”*
The law currently is not being enforced due to a an injunction by a state court judge, so no one is currently putting a lot in to the effort. If the law gets reinstated, the effort will pick up again.
*quoted from the complaint.
aimai
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m not really talking about the legalities, exactly, since I’m not a lawyer. I’m concerned about the fact that the plaintiff is dead and that the courts have previously acted like the disenfranchisement of any one person is really not that big a deal. I would like to be living under a legal system in which the fact that there are 25,000 or 80,000 people who are in an effected class would matter.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai:The other plaintiffs are organizations that serve that affected community and will need to devote time and effort to helping people get ID. They are there to establish the size of the affected community as well as demonstrate that the affected population happens to be primarily from the groups the VRA was supposed to protect.
ETA: I am rather heartened by the judge in the case. He is a Clinton appointee, a former Democratic state senator, and, importantly, a former legal aid lawyer. He is more likely than most judges to know what difficulties the people will face.
pseudonymous in nc
@aimai:
That still entails going back and addressing the situations of old people who were born in an era when the primary repository of vital records was the county courthouse, and plenty of records didn’t get filed.
@Hal:
There’s no positive right to vote. There ought to be, and I think it should be sufficiently comprehensive to overturn the disenfranchisement of felons, which is medieval bullshit.
Omnes Omnibus
@pseudonymous in nc: I also think any form of national ID for voting simply legitimizes the GOP’s complaints. There is no voter fraud problem. The US has enough real problems without trying to solve fake ones. Putting in a solution implies that there was a problem. The Republicans get a vindication of their complaints. Fuck ’em.
Corner Stone
I’m against a national ID. Seems un-American and gives in to the fear mongering, IMO.
Tokyokie
We already have a national ID. It’s called a passport.
burnspbesq
@aimai:
Your statement suggests that you have no fucking clue what it takes to get a class certified these days. Outrage plus ignorance is almost as toxic a combination as alcohol plus testosterone.
Southern Beale
@Tokyokie:
Also, Social Security number.
burnspbesq
Wisconsin is part of the Seventh Circuit, which assigns judges to panels by a supposedly random process. Fans of irony are rooting for Posner to get another crack at this issue.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq:
Not to speak out of turn or anything, but she also said all Duke Law grads were poopyheads.
Corner Stone
@Tokyokie: I don’t have to ever have a passport for anything in my country. Which country do you live in?
kideni
@Omnes Omnibus, thanks for bringing attention to this, and for clarifying so much in this thread. I knew this was coming up, but I hadn’t realized that it was this week. I know that a lot of grassroots groups are trying to strategize about how to deal with all of this however the ruling comes out. The Republican legislature is, of course, coming up with new legislation to try to get around constitutional issues (e.g., they propose to allow you to vote without an ID, but you have to state publicly at the polling place that you’re too poor to be able to obtain a copy of the birth certificate that would enable you to get the free ID). I think that may have been put on hold, but some of us have concerns that they’ll just push it through next year at a time perfectly selected to keep the courts from being able to respond in time with an injunction, and/or leave voter-rights groups without enough time to figure out how to mobilize effectively to get people the information they need to figure out how to register.
Omnes Omnibus
@kideni: I have read that the legislature is holding off on any further action until the court cases are resolved.
kideni
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s what I heard too. Nice that they sometimes consider the fact that so much of what they do is unconstitutional. I know there’s a bill in the works to make it so that circuit court injunctions are automatically stayed if the DOJ appeals. I imagine once that legislation passes (you know it will – they just have to schedule it), it will probably be stayed itself, but I can’t imagine they don’t have a plan to get any appeal shot up straight to the state supreme court. That law would make it difficult to minimize the damage of anything they do in state courts. It’s crazy.
Omnes Omnibus
@kideni:
QFT
Cervantes
@Kay:
@negative 1:
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thank you all three for your comments. I will ask Kathy Unger at VoteRiders for a report.
pseudonymous in nc
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’d be okay with it, along with a federal voter register that’s shared with the states and updated properly, using the Canadian model. Of course, the nullification states would refuse to have their own voter databases polluted by accurate information.
My attitude is “you’re not serious about the supposed threat of voter fraud unless you agree with a federal ID and voter database, and federal minimum standards for precinct size and provision.” That ought to shut up the bullshit line about state voter ID laws. If the sacredness of the vote really matters, it’s too fucking sacred to be left to the states.
Tokyokie
@Corner Stone: I said a passport is a national ID document; I didn’t say that local jurisdictions require it for anything. Passports are costly and a hassle to acquire, and because they’re really only needed for travel outside the country, most people don’t get them. Because of the relative difficulty in obtaining one, no jurisdiction has yet to require that a prospective voter produce one before receiving a ballot. Such a requirement would quickly be struck down by the courts as overly burdensome because of that difficulty, so various states have adopted more easily obtained forms of official ID as a requirement to vote, IDs that the supporters of the legislators who voted for such measures are highly likely to carry.
However, that doesn’t change the character of what a passport is: the only identification document that functions as proof of citizenship. (Contrary to what some believe, driver’s licenses and Social Security cards don’t do that because legal residents can and do obtain them.) Just try using your driver’s license to establish your indentity if you’re in another country. I have one, and I always take it along when I vote, just because I don’t know when a GOP stooge might be at the polling place challenging voters he considers hostile.
aimai
@Tokyokie: The thing is that a passport proves you are a citizen, which is one of the conditions for voting, but it doesn’t necessarily have your current address in it which is the other thing they can pretend to be checking. The argument isn’t that all this fradulent voting is done by illegal immigrants but also that it is done by people who are in the wrong precinct, or voting for someone else, or voting twice. If the Republicans want to deny you a ballot they will–they can demand that you have picture ID, that you have picture ID that proves you are a citizen, and then turn around and claim that you must have your current address on the ID in order to prove that you aren’t walking your real self from place to place and voting improperly more than once. If they just wanted you to prove your identity they would not reject expired Driver’s lisences, for example, or expired passports.
aimai
@burnspbesq: Oh, burnsie, you never fail. So is that your explanation for why you are such a toxic, angry, stupid commentor? Is it alcohol and testosterone in your case?
J R in WV
@Tokyokie:
That’s bullshit. Passports are ID internationally, not internally. They’re relatively hard to get and cost a lot. Lots of places in the US have never seen one and won’t accept it for anything.
Cervantes
@Cervantes: So I asked Kathleen and she recommended, inter alia, the following resource as it provides “the most comprehensive view of the laws and status.”
Ruckus
@Tokyokie:
Certainly free and easy to get one of those passports, isn’t it. And if I recall you need one of those birth thingies in the first place.
Ruckus
I don’t see how any form of ID that could be provided and acceptable to the loons will be done for free. So any form has the taint of a poll tax.