Whine, whine, whine.

- A judge is sworn to uphold the constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States, not to deliver judgments you happen to like. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is not "making law" it is "striking down law". For making up law, see Judge Mac Davis' creation of a new statute that required the GAB to do the Walker campaign's job of challenging petition signatures as duplicates (this was overturned but not in time to save you and me the cost of implementing it).
- Signing for the recall of the constitutionally-challenged Governor (see e.g. violating judicial orders to open the Capitol so that people could petition their government) is shameful because, what, it's an exercise of constitutional rights?
- Voter ID can only hope prevent voter fraud of the variety where someone pretends to be someone else. In case you didn't notice, despite having the greatest legal resources of any Wisconsin entity in existence, the Walker Administration did not submit for Flanagan's evaluation a single piece of evidence that such fraud existed. Not a single piece. Not even anecdotal. Not even a single incident reported on GAB-104 forms that Chief Election Inspectors are obliged to fill out of someone attempting to vote as someone who already had. Not a one.

The Wisconsin Constitution and its enshrining of the right to vote clearly doesn't mean much to you.

Considering that it has been illegal for poll workers to ask voters to show an ID if they suspect that they aren't who they claim to be, how exactly does one find any evidence of people voting under a name that had been falsely registered? The Wisconsin registration system used to allow 'vouching' in place of proper ID for voter registrations. There's no telling how many fictional names are on the registered voter list because of that flawed policy.

Any fake registration made via corroboration would be indicated either by a nonexistent address (which would be caught by pre-Act 23 procedures), or if a genuine address it will have been accompanied by the proof of residence of the corroborator.

Such fraud - if any ever existed - would be completely discoverable since at least one of the perpetrators has left their valid address attached to a fake public record. All one would need to do is randomly spot check such registrations and nobody needs to be disenfranchised in order to do that. Come on, this is world-of-duh stuff, you don't need someone else to think for you of how to do it.

But more generally, it beggars belief that someone - let alone an accomplice too - would risk 3 1/2 years in jail in order to cast a singular vote. Does anyone honestly think that: (a) someone would risk that jail time on the minute chance it would change the result of the election or have a collective precognizance with other such fraudsters of their required number to flip the result; (b) perpetrators of such fraud are stupid enough to put their name and address into the public record as evidence of their crime.

How exactly would 'random spot checks' of voter registrations detect that a non-existent person doesn't live at a specific address?

Risk 3.5 years for a singular vote? Partisan organizations doing voter registrations could have easily placed thousands of fictional voters on the register. Considering that it is virtually impossible for them to be caught, it doesn't seem like that big of a risk to take...

"How exactly would 'random spot checks' of voter registrations detect that a non-existent person doesn't live at a specific address?" - do I really need to hold your hand and walk you through that?

"Risk 3.5 years for a singular vote? Partisan organizations doing voter registrations could have easily placed thousands of fictional voters on the register." - each instance is a distinct felony, so it's 3 1/2 years of their lives at risk for each singular fake registration that a special registration deputy might submit. So you're suggesting that people go out and commit felonies amounting to millenia of jail time and yet somehow fly under the radar of everyone capable of comparing the registration rolls to the USPS' list of valid mailing addresses and state identity databases? (The latter of course won't match all qualified electors, but if an SRD's miss rate is exceptional for the area then it would draw a lot of attention).

"Considering that it is virtually impossible for them to be caught," - you're actually correct here, although you seem to have reached this conclusion via a path devoid of evidence: it's virtually impossible to catch fradulent voters because next to none of them actually exist.

@Mr. Tolley -

"Voter ID can only hope prevent voter fraud of the variety where someone pretends to be someone else."

Actually, that's not true at all. Voter ID would have prevented this:

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=274730

Clearly, these out-of-state SEIU officials weren't pretending to be anyone other than themselves when they fraudulently used the address of a Milwaukee area hotel to register themselves to our voter rolls and cast a ballot in our election, were they? And yet, voter ID would have effectively prevented the kind of fraud that these people almost successfully perpetrated due to the holes in our current system, as out-of-state residents wouldn't possess the required ID to be able to vote.

While these people were caught, and only because of the vigilance of the media and not the government in discovering such fraud, it makes one seriously ponder how many instances of such fraud was successful and went undiscovered. Enough to possibly flip the results of a tight race.... Unfortunately, we'll never really know for sure, will we?

Additionally, there has NEVER been an investigation where the addresses listed on registrations were personally visited by investigators to confirm whether or not the elector does in fact live where they claimed to live when registering, has there? Thus, transplants from within the state could very easily effect the outcome of local elections. Again Voter ID would shut down such fraud.

I think it would be more relevant if you were to cite a case where fraud was shown to have existed, rather than one in which it is being alleged and no charges have even been filed.

"Clearly, these out-of-state SEIU officials weren't pretending to be anyone other than themselves when they fraudulently used the address of a Milwaukee area hotel to register themselves to our voter rolls and cast a ballot in our election, were they?" - I am unfamiliar with the details here: what is the suggestion, that they used a hotel bill as proof of residence? Act 23 did nothing to change the impermissibility of that.

"While these people were caught, and only because of the vigilance of the media and not the government in discovering such fraud [...]" - except no such fraud has been discovered, only alleged. You also seem to be calling Van Hollen useless at his job.

"[...] it makes one seriously ponder how many instances of such fraud was successful and went undiscovered. Enough to possibly flip the results of a tight race.... Unfortunately, we'll never really know for sure, will we?" - that's all you have though in support of Act 23: allegations and insinuations. The legal arguments against it seem to be strictly off-limits to detractors of Flanagan and Niess.

"Additionally, there has NEVER been an investigation where the addresses listed on registrations were personally visited by investigators to confirm whether or not the elector does in fact live where they claimed to live when registering, has there?" - my point is that such an investigation is utterly possible without resort to changing the law in the manner of Act 23 and requires no changes in law in order to investigate and discover some justification for the Act - however small in relation to the 300,000 disenfranchised. That such basic research was not done beforehand represents a massive failure and waste of public resources on the part of the GOP-run legislature.

@Mr. Tolley -

You keep on asserting that 300,000 eligible electors will be disenfranchised by Act 23 if it's allowed to be implemented. How do you know this for certain? Did the Plaintiffs go out and locate all 300,000 to verify that indeed such people don't already have a qualifying ID and that it would be virtually impossible for them to obtain one without enduring an undue hardship? In fact, that number comes from a statistical study and comparison of databases that are no where near 100% accurate.

As you feel it's "utterly possible without resort to changing the law in the manner of Act 23 and requires no changes in law in order to investigate and discover some justification for the Act," then it likewise would have been utterly possible for the Plaintiffs to produce a far larger sampling than 5 people, three of which were able to obtain the required ID with relatively little hardship compared to the importance of the right such a law would act to protect and preserve the integrity of. After all, the burden is on the Plaintiffs here, and yet Flanagan let the case proceed with only a showing of two people that still hadn't pursued their remedy at law before the circuit court to obtain the necessary documentation needed to obtain the required ID - please, you've got to be kidding me!

"You keep on asserting that 300,000 eligible electors will be disenfranchised by Act 23 if it's allowed to be implemented. How do you know this for certain?"

Because it is a legal fact established by a Wisconsin court (#24 on page 11 of http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/July12/0717/0717naacpvwalker.pdf).

@Mr. Tolley -

That would be a finding of fact made by one judge - not a "legal fact." Judges disagree with each other all the time, thus without confirmation in the manner I suggest, it can't even be called an objective fact. And remember, the Plaintiffs bore the burden here. You'd think that the Plaintiffs would have taken their burden seriously and actually counted and named everyone in the state that would have been disenfranchised by Act 23 before wasting all the time and money on a lawsuit of this magnitude and inconvenience, as doing so is well within the realm of possibility!

Try again!

Oh, no, not another "activist" judge!!! (Definition of activist judge - one whose decision I disagree with). Never mind that the law violates the State's Constitution. That's just a piece of paper.
I bet you were cheering mightily for the Supreme Court to "make law" and overturn the Affordable Care Act. Nothing like consistency!
Civics lesson, Gordo - Legislative branch passes bills, those bills must be signed by the Executive to become law, and even then can be overturned as unconstitutional by the Judiciary. Overturning an unconstitutional law, or banning an illegal activity is NOT "making law".

Everyone who is of legal age and legal residence of Wisconsin should be able to vote. What is wrong with proving you are who you say you are when you vote? NOTHING! And a large majority of people in this state agree.....80%.

What those that claim disenfranchisement are REALLY saying is some are too stupid to get a free photo ID and the need to be called out on that.

@Keith Best...The Republicans clearly made an error in the way the law was written. If they would have put provisions in for "grandfathering" certain groups of citizens, such as the elderly and disabled; the law might have been found constitutional. In addition, provisions should have been made to make it easier to gain an ID rather than more difficult. So committed was the amateurs in the legislature to suppressing potential Democratic voters that they left their brains parked outside the legislative chambers.

Your statement about people being too stupid to get a state photo ID is smacking of the old literacy test imposed by the Jim Crow south. What are you going to push next; a poll tax? I think you'd be right at home living anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon. It's too bad you were born a 100 years too late.

Isn't that a bit too much, Lyle? Do you honestly think so little of the people of the South that you use them as your insult?

@Keith - First of all there is no reason to go into the gutter and start throwing around "people are too stupid" arguments. It's beneath a level of good public discourse that people in political leaderships should be exhibiting.

As for the law itself, it is extremely legally flawed. Judge Flanagan struck it down on the basis of 'unreasonable burden', but that isn't the only angle which could have been used to strike it from the books.

The best one I've seen is the Lester Pines argument for the League of Women Voters: class of citizen. Wisconsin's constitution calls for 2 classes of citizens: citizens and felons. By creating a barrier (voter id) to a constitutional right (voting) we artifically create a three classes of citizens (citizens with id, citizens without id and felons); which makes the law completely unconstitutional.

Of course these things will happen when legislators use templated or modeled legislation from think tanks rather than drafting state-based laws which jibe with the constitution of said state.

Why does an ID requirement create a barrier to a constitutional right while gun permit requirements do not?

KB, If you want to call somebody stupid you need to be a lefty hack and include a description of a romantic dinner with your wife that you spent eves dropping on the next tables conversation. Then you can say:
"And you think this guy, as ignorant as he is, should be allowed to vote when you are suppressing the rights of others? Disgusting."
What next, a poll tax?...Blah, blah, blah...

CowDung: "Why does an ID requirement create a barrier to a constitutional right while gun permit requirements do not?"

There is a compelling government interest in preventing those with criminal records from obtaining firearms. In the case of voting, there exists no compelling government interest in disenfranchising hundreds of thousands in order to prevent, well, no proven cases at all actually of people illegally voting in a manner that would be preventable by a photo ID requirement.

Now, if there were any hint at all of photo ID-preventable fraud occurring at a rate within (say) an order of magnitude of this disenfranchisement, there may be an argument of substance to retort Flanagan's and Niess' rulings. If there were an actual effort made to reduce the number of electors without photo ID to the same kind of vanishingly small number of cases of photo ID-preventable fraud that could reasonably exist without detection, then there may be a similar argument to make. Neither is the case, however.

Is there not a compelling government interest in preventing felons from voting? There should be a compelling government interest in preserving the integrity of the vote by making sure that only legitimate voters are casting a ballot.

All your arguments seem to hinge on the lack of convictions for voter fraud that can be prevented by voter ID. Unfortunately, we live in a system where it is virtually impossible to detect that sort of voter fraud without having a voter ID requirement. Even if a poll worker suspects that a voter is not the person they claim to be, they cannot legally ask for ID to confirm nor dispel their suspicions.

Voter fraud will also be blamed when Polly Williams sees too many white folk voting in the 10th assembly district race.

Yes... absolutely. Because National Public Radio has such a good reputation as non-partisan and non-biased. And mind you many of those studies consist of "oh by the way have you committed a felony" survey. Definitely questions designed to produce honest responses.

The left says that they always want the "establishment" to respect the will of the people. Most surveys, on both sides of the isle, show that as much as 75% of the population believe that voter ID is needed and appropriate.

Lets heed the peoples will.

Currently, anyone supplied with a name and an address that is on the voter roles regardless if that is the person OR NOT, can vote. If no one else comes forward using that name and address, fraud is committed....and it is virtually impossible to prove.

Actually, those who get their news from NPR know significantly more accurate information about current events than virtually any other news source. Fox viewers rank below those who list "none" as their primary source of news. I suppose that's why Fox viewers know so much about voter fraud - and countless other things that don't exist.

Coke, Pepsi, Wendy's, Intuit, and others walked away from ALEC primarily over the Stand Your Ground/castle doctrine legislation that led to the death of Trayvon Martin and a number of other people since the laws were enacted. The reason cited was that this type of legislation does not fit their interest in legislation that benefits corporate profit-making. (The Examiner also cites Trayvon Martin http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/444346)

Newsbusters is a right wing fringe "fake" news site, not a legitimate news source.

The will of the people (as measured by pollsters) is in conflict with the will of the people (as enshrined in Article III of the Wisconsin Constitution).

The proper approach to resolving this conflict and solving the non-problem of voter fraud by misrepresentation is to change the Wisconsin Constitution, not to write unconstitutional laws.

Why is it that those who describe themselves as "conservatives" in this country have this habit of ignoring the Constitution that they claim to revere if it doesn't let them have what they want right this minute?

Vast majorities of Americans support every single individual component of the ACA - no more pre-existing conditions, young adults staying on parents' plans, individual insurance exchanges - all of it. The only thing they oppose is the means of paying for it - the individual mandate to have insurance.

ACA is virtually identical to the MA law, which has been wildly successful (over 95% of MA residents covered), wildly popular, and a fiscal success. By 2016, republicans will come to hate the term "Obamacare", because it will be incredibly popular. The real kicker for republicans will be that is was THEIR idea in the first place, and Obama will get all the credit.

You mean the "ethical" judge that signed a recall petition?
"Dane County Judge David Flanagan has been under fire for not disclosing his support of the recall before he issued a temporary restraining order against a Walker-backed voter ID law."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Mar/18/newspaper__29_judges_sign_walker_recall_petition.html

@conservachick...Signing the recall petition and ruling on the Wisconsin voter ID law aren't connected and doesn't represent a conflict of interest. So, why are you attempting to make the connection?

That's the best comeback you've got, Lyle. Pffft...

How does it not represent a conflict of interest? If the guy indicates that he wants Walker out of power by signing a petition, he can clearly be viewed as biased against laws that Walker supports--particularly if he fails to disclose the fact.

@conservachick...I don't need another "come back" since your reasoning is so biased and flawed.

@CowDung...You're making a big stretch with your reasoning. A clear case of selective perception on your part. He wasn't ruling on anything doing with the recall.

They don't have to be making a ruling that deals directly with the recall. The nature of the recall itself brings in an anti-Walker bias that extends to every piece of legislation that Walker supports.

@CowDung...Your stretching even more.

So Lyle, why is THIS voter ID law unconstitutional when the UNITED STATES Supreme court upheld the nearly identical Indiana law?

AND, if not all voter ID laws are unconstitutional, why didn't Judge Flannigan strike down the parts that were and leave the rest?

We all know the reason, Flannigan didn't want voter ID for the Scott Walker (non)recall election to make it easier to steal the election.

@The Anti-Alinsky: if you read Flanagan's ruling (http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/July12/0717/0717naacpvwalker.pdf) you'll be able to read in his own words the many, many reasons why Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is utterly irrelevant to the case before him. In a nutshell, the decision was based upon the Wisconsin Constitution (not in effect in Indiana); the Indiana photo ID law offers alternative means of voting to those lacking photo ID, which Act 23 does not; and the evidence provided by the plaintiffs in this case was far better than that presented by Crawford.

"AND, if not all voter ID laws are unconstitutional, why didn't Judge Flannigan strike down the parts that were and leave the rest?" - he did exactly that. To quote his conclusion "It is the order for judgment and judgment of the court that the defendants shall cease immediately and permanently all and any effort to enforce or implement the Photo identification requirements of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23". Its other requirements remain intact (Niess' order in the parallel case being of the same substance).

"We all know the reason, Flannigan didn't want voter ID for the Scott Walker (non)recall election to make it easier to steal the election." - and Scott Walker was concerned that 83 year olds and Marine Corps vets might want to vote against him. And Tommy Thompson appointed Flanagan to the bench because he secretly hates Walker and also has a time machine.

Alinsky needs a little civics lesson. MORON! Each STATE (Wisconsin is one of those, there are 49 others) has its OWN Constitution! The Federal government only has legal jurisdiction over a small handful of things, so MOST of the laws that we all live under are STATE laws. STATE laws must comply with both the STATE and US Constitutions. Therefore, something that is permitted (but not guaranteed) under the US Constitution can still be unconstitutional according to the STATE constitution.

Bert, your an A$$. I guess I didn't realize a simpleton would try to parrot Geoff's point, and do it worse.

Both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions hold the right to vote as the fundamental basis of our government. Since the highest court in the Country has ruled a SIMILIAR law constitutional, I find it hard to believe that the state Supreme Court would find a different conclusion based on the same concept.

However, to Geoff's point, yes the state Supreme Court has the ability to rule other wise, though will doubtlessly uphold it.

Big difference between funding a peer-reviewed study to get at the truth, versus spending millions to obscure the truth to force your will on voters.

The voter ID DOES NOT impair ones right to vote!
You need a photo ID to cash a check!
You need a photo driver's license to legally drive on the street!
You need a photo ID to purchase alcohol!
You need a photo ID to purchase tobacco products!
You need a photo ID to board an airplane!
You need a photo ID to get a job!
You need a photo ID for just about anything you do in society today!

If you actually read Flanagan's ruling (which you can find at http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/July12/0717/0717naacpvwalker.pdf - I've not seen it linked to anywhere else yet), several examples are cited of individuals who had their right to vote impaired by Act 23.

@Mr. Tolley -

Actually, if you read the findings and order of the Court, 3 of the 5 individuals who testified before the Court were successful in obtaining the required ID with little to moderate effort involved. And the two who were unsuccessful in obtaining the ID simply gave up trying, but could have easily done so had they provided the DMV with the proper documentation / proof of residency.

One big error that the Court made was presuming that the testifying individuals were in fact eligible electors - instead of independently verifying such fact, the Court simply accepted the witnesses statement to such end as being true. What a JOKE!

Another error the Court made was failing to recognize the FACT that Wisconsin law waives documentation and/or court fees for truly indigent residents upon verification of an application made for such a waiver. Thus, the birth certificate fee or circuit court fees that may otherwise be required to obtain an official birth certificate can all be waived for truly indigent residents. I don't know about you, this appears to be a very pertinent and material FACT in this case.

"Actually, if you read the findings and order of the Court, 3 of the 5 individuals who testified before the Court were successful in obtaining the required ID with little to moderate effort involved." - because when your income is $600 per month and you're disabled, dragging yourself on foot literally miles around town and coming up with $20 is only a "little to moderate effort".

"And the two who were unsuccessful in obtaining the ID simply gave up trying, but could have easily done so had they provided the DMV with the proper documentation / proof of residency." - your presumption that they gave up trying is without foundation, but that hasn't stopped you from claiming it.

"One big error that the Court made was presuming that the testifying individuals were in fact eligible electors - instead of independently verifying such fact, the Court simply accepted the witnesses statement to such end as being true. What a JOKE!" - you mean AG Van Hollen with the full resources of his department and the backing of the Walker Administration was utterly incapable of shooting them down? How weak and pathetic they must be.

"Another error the Court made was failing to recognize the FACT that Wisconsin law waives documentation and/or court fees for truly indigent residents upon verification of an application made for such a waiver." - you'll have no trouble whatsoever then in producing the statute that allows this.

I see you have nothing at all to say about finding of fact #27.

@Mr. Tolley -

"because when your income is $600 per month and you're disabled, dragging yourself on foot literally miles around town and coming up with $20 is only a "little to moderate effort"."

Again, Flanagan presents no independent verification of these facts - he's just presuming that the party witnesses are telling the truth. Do you honestly think that the defense didn't thoroughly cross examine these witnesses during the trial? Absent a transcript of the trial proceedings being released, we'll never know what facts were fleshed out during those cross-examinations that Flanagan conveniently ignored in his order. Do you think any of those witnesses introduced their tax returns or medical records as evidence of their asserted and alleged conditions at trial?

"your presumption that they gave up trying is without foundation, but that hasn't stopped you from claiming it."

Well, if there were testimony indicating that those two filed a case in the circuit court and the dockets from those cases had been introduced as evidence, or if Flanagan had taken judicial notice of such alleged cases having been filed based on a CCAP record, don't you think he would have included such in his order under the respective summaries of testimony? Why would he have included everything else, but left out such a vital and material fact?

"you mean AG Van Hollen with the full resources of his department and the backing of the Walker Administration was utterly incapable of shooting them down? How weak and pathetic they must be."

Now who's presuming things? Without the trial transcript, how do you know that a vigorous defense wasn't asserted and that the credibility of all of these witnesses weren't effectively destroyed during cross-examination pursuant to a RPOP standard?

"you'll have no trouble whatsoever then in producing the statute that allows this."

Article 1 section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution
Wis. Stats. §814.29

"I see you have nothing at all to say about finding of fact #27."

As I stated earlier, none of those so-called investigations actively searched for voter fraud because the addresses listed on the registrations were never personally visited to verify whether or not an elector lives where they actually claimed to live. But if Flanagan is going to use the standard that no prosecutions equates to the fact that it therefore must not exist, then I guess he doesn’t believe that littering occurs either, right? I wonder how Flanagan would then explain how there is always trash in my ditch that fronts a public thoroughfare…

Geoff,
fact 27: "Since 2004, voter fraud investigations have been undertaken by the Milwaukee Police Department, by the Mayor of Milwaukee and by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, working with various county prosecutors working through the Attorney General's Election Fraud Task Force. None of these efforts have produced a prosecution of a voter fraud violation that would have been prevented by the voter ID requirements of Act 23."

In the case of MPD, the Mayor's office and the Milwaukee County DA, how much effort do you think actually went into finding voter fraud?

As far as JB Van Hollen's office:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/01/doj_task_force_charg.php

@James Hoffa:

"Again, Flanagan presents no independent verification of these facts - he's just presuming that the party witnesses are telling the truth."

When you have 40 affidavits (referred to in the TRO ruling) attesting to similar experiences as a result of a law that the defense does not challenge the authenticity of, it is customary to conclude that they all reflect the same truth.

"Do you think any of those witnesses introduced their tax returns or medical records as evidence of their asserted and alleged conditions at trial?"

Since they're under penalty of perjury if they lie, it seems unlikely that 40 people would all do so in order to benefit themselves... how exactly? It makes no sense. The DA could easily look up the court records referred to and it would be an open and closed case of perjury, yet that hasn't happened.

"Without the trial transcript, how do you know that a vigorous defense wasn't asserted and that the credibility of all of these witnesses weren't effectively destroyed during cross-examination pursuant to a RPOP standard?"

It would be trivial for the defense to get a summary appellate declaration of mistrial if Flanagan wholly misrepresented their case since he lists 5 examples of these affidavits among his findings of fact. If the defense had in fact been able to demonstrate that any these were untrue (not even all of them) then we'd see that, but we don't.

"Article 1 section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution
Wis. Stats. §814.29"

Those do not allow for the recovery of fees for obtaining documents by indigents. Well, I _suppose_ you could claim that an indigent could go to a court and under §814.29 ask for court fees to be waived in order to argue before the court that on the basis of Article I Section 9 they should be issued a (say) birth certificate without charge in order to justly be able to exercise their Article III rights (but then that would actually be another constitutional argument against Act 23 that it does not provide for this).

"But if Flanagan is going to use the standard that no prosecutions equates to the fact that it therefore must not exist, then I guess he doesn’t believe that littering occurs either, right"

False. Seeing litter is an experience common to everyone, and it is trivial for a party to put, well, practically anyone on the stand to testify that littering occurs, thus establishing as a legal fact that littering occurs, whether or not a particular act can be successfully associated with a particular person. On the other hand, to establish photo ID-preventable voter fraud as a legal fact, one needs to find a successful prosecution for it of a perpetrator who could not have done so had photo ID been in place.

@The Anti-Alinsky:

"In the case of MPD, the Mayor's office and the Milwaukee County DA, how much effort do you think actually went into finding voter fraud?"

Quite a bit actually, here is their report: http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/ElectionResults_2004_VoterFraudInvestigation_MPD-SIU-A2474926.pdf

"As far as JB Van Hollen's office:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/01/doj_task_force_charg.php";

You need to read that more carefully. While voter fraud exists, not a single one of those 20 cases would have been prevented by photo ID: 19 of them were by people who were exactly who they claimed to be, and the last was by a man who would have been perfectly positioned to enclose a photocopy of his late wife's ID with her absentee ballot had Act 23 been in place at the time.

@Mr. Tolley -

"When you have 40 affidavits…."

And this proves an independent verification how exactly? Oh yeah, it doesn't. There very well could be 40 liars. Without any kind of independent verification, we'll never know for sure, will we?

"Since they're under penalty of perjury if they lie…."

Yeah, because no one has ever lied due to the penalty of perjury, have they? The defense could have done a shoddy job of impeachment of the witnesses upon cross-examination, but without the transcript, no one can really say for sure. Having previously been a social worker myself, you'd be surprised how many people lie about their medical and monetary conditions for all kinds of reasons on a regular basis.

"If the defense had in fact been able to demonstrate that any these were untrue (not even all of them) then we'd see that, but we don't."

We certainly wouldn't be seeing it in Flanagan's order, would we? Only in the trial transcript, which probably hasn't been transcribed yet and most likely won't be unless an appeal to the order is filed. And no, the state wouldn't necessarily file an appeal even if such egregious and unwarranted liberties had been taken by Flanagan, as such a decision would come down to their long term strategy which could be to pursue a more political solution (amendment) as opposed to fighting for a legal solution. Only time will tell the tale on this one.

"Those do not allow for the recovery of fees for obtaining documents…. ***"

See, you figured it out and I knew you would - good for you! So how exactly is this a constitutional argument against Act 23 that "does not provide for this," when an adequate remedy at law already exists? Why the need for redundant legislation? While filing a legal action to obtain a birth certificate at zero cost may in fact pose a significant burden, I don't see how it's unduly so considering the interest that's served in protecting the perception of integrity in our electoral process by the Act 23 provisions. It's also customary in the law that a Plaintiff must first exhaust all administrative and other legal remedies that may exist before filing an action seeking declaratory relief from a court. None of the Plaintiffs/witnesses demonstrated at trial that they ever even attempted to exercise their pre-existing legal rights to obtain a free birth certificate to the state if they're truly indigent under the procedure I provided to you. In fact, Flanagan never even made a finding that any of the testifying Plaintiffs/witnesses were in fact indigent, did he? Isn't such an omission a little disturbing to say the least?

"False. Seeing litter is an experience…. *** … one needs to find a successful prosecution for it of a perpetrator who could not have done so had photo ID been in place "

Cite your authority in law that mandates that Voter ID preventable fraud can only be proven by the showing of a previous successful prosecution. In fact, no such standard exists. If Flanagan is claiming such, then he's making law and legislating from the bench, and that my friend is a textbook activist. In the law, no facts are presumed unless the court takes judicial notice of them, and nowhere in Flanagan's order does it state that the Court took judicial notice of any facts period.

I have to wonder how many dingbats like Mary there are in this country? Have you ever read any of the Federalist Papers and read the words of the founding fathers on the sacred right to vote? The fact that one fraudulent vote can cancel out your vote should have you outraged! But it benefits your party so you continue to eat cake and watch Oprah!

@rich republican...Attempting to understand intent by reading the Federalist Papers come up short if one doesn't read Hume, Locke, Mills, Smith, etc. The papers were written under the context of the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. If we were still following the Federalist Papers, only rich white male property owners would have the right to vote. Social conditions change and a good document, like the constitution will adapt with the continuing challenges. When the "papers" were written there were only 4.5 million in the colonies. Now we're contending with 311 million which requires different actions. As a "rich republican", maybe you could by yourself a private island and form what ever kind of government you want, with a gross population of one.

Again Lyle, the Federalist Papers are only one source of trying to determine the founding father's intent, although it is probably the best one there is. Locke, et al, are other good sources, but the most contemporary source is the Federalist Papers.

And lets not forget that those same founders were wise enough to build in a mechanism of change so that we wouldn't have the argument of whether black or women were allowed to vote, and to make your argument look silly in the process.

Yes, let's venerate the eternal wisdom of the founding fathers, who included this gem on voting rights in the Constitution:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

That's all republicans want, just return "all other persons" to their Constitutionally designated three-fifths status. Voter ID certainly helps that goal!

@Blade - Not needing a permit to carry a gun is exactly what some Republican legislators endorsed last year. So carrying a loaded Glock 9mm without a permit would have been legal, but voting would be restricted, under their plan.
And you wonder why reasonable and moderate people think the extreme right is bizarre.

Good point Johnny boy. There has been a lot more abuse of guns than voting. So you are in favor of clamping down on guns? No. Because you are a supreme hypocrite and your only concern is suppressing votes.

@conservachick - The AG is flailing around just like you are.
1. The Circuit Court is not stating that voting rights are different for state and federal constitutions.
2. The AG says "law that clearly is constitutional as applied to the vast majority of voters". So he is admitting that it is not constitutional for ALL voters.
3. The AG also says "wrongly holding that every statute implicating voting rights is subject to strict scrutiny". Why would any statute not be subject to strict scrutiny?
4. The AG's last complaint is "...erroneously concluding that the voter ID requirements permanently disenfranchise...". But the court does not do that.

No where does Van Hollen actually say that the Voter ID bill is 100% constitutional. He just argues legal points. I fell sorry for the guy, having a job where you have to defend such a weak law.

Admit it chick. You don't care about the 'sanctity of voting." You only care about suppressing votes so the GOP can win. Can't you people campaign fair and square?

Did it suprize you that TWO Dane County judges ruled it unconstitutional and made it a permanent injunction? I'm still waiting on Maryann Sumi to make a ruling.

Voting is a right. There is no reason for voter ID. None. Mau, please can your self-righteousness about this issue. We all know why you want this. Stop your lying.

The TRO was granted - could *only* have been granted - if the plaintiffs had shown both a high likelihood of prevailing *and* that irreparable harm would take place without one. Ruling in favor of a party you have previously ruled had a high likelihood of prevailing is not a show of partiality except to the merits of the case.

And again, you refrain from making any attempt to rebut any of the legal points here, the only thing you have in your arsenal being an attempt to smear the judge involved. It's just hollow.

@Mr. Tolley -

To the contrary - if you read the way in which Flanagan wrote his order granting the TRO, you knew after the first couple sentences exactly how he was going to rule. A truly impartial judge always performs the legal analysis (application of the relevant law to the material facts of the case) before reaching an ultimate conclusion. Revered jurist Learned Hand was exceptional at doing this.

As for rebutting the legal points Flanagan made, see my above comment in response to your comment concerning the individual party witnesses who testified at the trail.

"if you read the way in which Flanagan wrote his order granting the TRO, you knew after the first couple sentences exactly how he was going to rule. A truly impartial judge always performs the legal analysis (application of the relevant law to the material facts of the case) before reaching an ultimate conclusion."

Wait, *what*? Are you seriously trying to claim that an impartial judicial order is necessarily written in a linear style? Because you think a judge orders their points in a certain way, they must not be impartial?

That's presuming that you are telling the truth. Let's look at Flanagan's TRO (http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Voter+ID+injunction.pdf), which begins:

"This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to preclude enforcement of that that [sic] portion of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 which requires Wisconsin electors to produce one of several specific forms of photo identification in order to receive an official ballot."

Flanagan clearly oozes prejudice here.

"This case is set for trial commencing April 16, 2012."

Communism!

"Pending trial, the plaintiffs have moved for a temporary injunction"

See how he's trying to ingratiate himself the plaintiffs' paymasters with that one.

"Both sides have submitted argument as to the applicable legal principles as well as evidence in the form of written affidavits."

Legislating from the bench!

"An evidentiary hearing was conducted March 1, 2012 in which the testimony of UW Political Science Professor Kenneth Mayer was presented on behalf of the plaintiffs."

See how he allows intellectuals to speak in his court? Blasphemy!

"The motion for temporary injunctive relief poses two issues before the court."

See how he hedges by making up not one, but *two* issues!

"The court must first determine whether the moving party demonstrated the probability of eventual success at trial."

See how he makes things hard for the defendants by making them present actual compelling counter-arguments to the arguments of the plaintiffs!

"If there is such a showing, the court must then determine whether it is probable that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to render a temporary injunctive order, Wener v. A.L. Grootemaat & Sons, Inc., 80 Wis. 2d 513, 520, 259 N.W.2d 310 (1977)."

See how he compounds the hardship for the defendants by making them look up references!

"For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have demonstrated the probability of success as well as the likelihood of irreparable harm."

Aha! The smoking gun! See how instead of making us wade through pages and pages of legal reasoning, he shows his prejudices up front by quickly summarizing his final conclusion on the first page!

"The court therefore orders that the defendant cease enforcement of Act 23 as to any requirement of photo identification of voters pending further order of this court."

And that seals it: clearly since Act 23 was brought down the mountain on stone tablets by the GOP, any ruling against it *must* be due to bias from the outset!

~~~~

You clearly bet that I wouldn't go look that up, and you lost badly, so I mock you for it.

@Mr. Tolley -

Once again to the contrary of your conclusions, the fact that Flanagan only mentions evidence being presented by the Plaintiffs at the evidentiary hearing in his opening summation, while completely ignoring that the defense had also introduced evidence in addition to mounting a vigorous defense against the position of the Plaintiffs is proof positive of predisposed bias as to how he would rule.

It has nothing to do with being linear - it has to do with following proper judicial procedure in regards to making definite conclusions of law premised upon an absolute analysis of the facts in application to the relevant law, which should never be done following a motion hearing for a TRO, as the full factual record has not yet been fully developed and established and will only become available at trial. Hell, the case hadn't even went into discovery yet! Otherwise, why bother even having a trial at all in such cases?

And yet, that's exactly what Flanagan does time and again throughout the order, as evidenced by the following:

He concludes that "there is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23," despite 1) not being privy to the full factual record that would only become known at trial, and 2) allowing speculation and supposition to support the Plaintiff's contentions of potential disenfranchisement during the motion hearing, but then not following that same standard in regards to the evidence of such potential fraud offered by the defense - a clear double standard at play!

He states that "Act 23 is addressed to a problem which is very limited if indeed extant." How could he make such an assessment without being privy to the full factual record that would only become known at trial?

He classifies the Act as an "unconstitutional regulation [that] had been unwisely attempted." Gee, he already declared it unconstitutional - why bother even going to trial before this judge. He should have just awarded the Plaintiffs' permanent injunctive relief right then and there if he's going to make such conclusions without a fully developed factual record - he would have saved both the taxpayers and the Plaintiffs a lot of time and money!

And these are just a few of the obvious signs of a predisposed bias written into this order!

Flanagan was impartial my butt!

"You clearly bet that I wouldn't go look that up, and you lost badly, so I mock you for it."

Ummm... yeah, in fact, I counted on you looking that up - I just thought that you would have read and comprehended it a little better than you did! If you have to tell yourself that Hoffa lost badly to make yourself feel better about losing in all reality, than so be it. However, instead of mocking you, I will merely pity you, as Hoffa is a good guy and isn't very big on gloating ;-)

"He concludes that "there is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23," despite 1) not being privy to the full factual record that would only become known at trial,"

You argue that TRO's should never, ever be granted. That's insane.

"and 2) allowing speculation and supposition to support the Plaintiff's contentions of potential disenfranchisement during the motion hearing, but then not following that same standard in regards to the evidence of such potential fraud offered by the defense - a clear double standard at play!"

Except it is not Flanagan's conclusion in the TRO that there is no such evidence of Act 23-preventable voter fraud, it is the *defense's*:

"At this point, however, the record is *uncontested* that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23" [my emphasis].

You call the evidence presented by the plaintiffs "speculation and supposition" despite the fact - actually let's call it FACT because you're fond of such capitalization - that the plaintiffs produced an expert witness plus demographic studies and "the defense has questioned closely the adequacy of Professor Mayer's data but has not challenged the authenticity or the reliability of the sources of data"

Let me make this very clear: Scott Walker et al *did not even dispute* that they had no evidence what-so-ever that Act 23 would prevent any fraud at all. Scott Walker et al *did not even dispute* the plaintiff's evidence of Act 23's widespread disenfranchisement.

When the defense offers nothing and the plaintiff demonstrates both that and the potential for irreparable harm, granting a TRO can only be described as bias in the most fevered of dreams.

Mr. Tolley -

"You argue that TRO's should never, ever be granted. That's insane."

Where do I do this? In fact, I don't do this at all. What I argue is that TRO's should NEVER conclude absolutes - but rather only that the Plaintiff's have a "possibility of succeeding on the merits of their claims." And yet, Flanagan's order for TRO is filled to absolute conclusions of both law and fact without being privy to the entirety of the record - that's called predisposed bias.

Again, if that's what you consider to be acceptable, then why do we even need to bother with trials in such cases?

"Except it is not Flanagan's conclusion in the TRO that there is no such evidence of Act 23-preventable voter fraud, it is the *defense's*:"

Premised upon convictions instead of mere possibilities. The mere possibility of disenfranchisement formed the basis of his ruling, not absolute proof positive cases of disenfranchisement. This is a clear double standard! Especially seeing as how we had one election during which the Voter ID law was in effect to use as a base line. In fact, the Plaintiffs introduced no such evidence of a single person being disenfranchised during that election, did they? Don't you think that would have been a VERY relevant and VERY material FACT in this case? COME ON!

"Let me make this very clear: Scott Walker et al *did not even dispute* that they had no evidence what-so-ever that Act 23 would prevent any fraud at all. Scott Walker et al *did not even dispute* the plaintiff's evidence of Act 23's widespread disenfranchisement."

And how do know this for a FACT just from the judge's TRO order? Without a transcript from the trial, you're putting complete faith in your presumption that the judge is completely accurate and honest in his writings. Human beings are flawed - even judges. You should trust no one - always go to the primary source!

Interesting how you have no retort to the passage wherein Flanagan actually characterized Act 23 as an "unconstitutional regulation."

The BIAS is abundantly apparent - just admit it!

"Flanagan's order for TRO is filled to absolute conclusions of both law and fact without being privy to the entirety of the record - that's called predisposed bias."

Give me a break. Flanagan writing in his TRO that "There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23" is an accurate summary of the defense's abysmal failure to submit any evidence for such fraud. It is not a finding of fact, is not claimed to be a finding of fact and most certainly did not preclude the defense from later presenting such evidence at trial (which they did not).

"The mere possibility of disenfranchisement formed the basis of his ruling, not absolute proof positive cases of disenfranchisement."

If you don't want to read the ruling, you shouldn't pretend that you did. The basis for the plaintiff's case and the ruling is the Wisconsin Constitution; the

"In fact, the Plaintiffs introduced no such evidence of a single person being disenfranchised during that election, did they?"

Er... if the number of people who are electors of Wisconsin is greater than the number with acceptable ID by a few hundred thousand. None of those people are allowed to vote under Act 23. I'm sure you'll now claim that they could have run off and gotten their "free" ID's and ignore the legal facts that procuring a DMV ID can easily be a frustrating, complex and time-consuming process and require the expenditure of a significant for an eligible voter who is indigent.

I have personally seen disenfranchisement as an observer during one of last summer's recall elections: a gentleman brought his son in for his first visit to the polls and found out then that while his son had no proof of residence, he could not vouch for him now along with his own since Act 23. The fact that several of the poll workers knew both of them personally did not matter one jot, and the son was turned away. Act 23 disenfranchisement is real. Perhaps he went and obtained some proof of residence of his own after that, but that doesn't change the fact that Act 23 removed his Constitutional rights in that election.

"And how do know this for a FACT just from the judge's TRO order? Without a transcript from the trial, you're putting complete faith in your presumption that the judge is completely accurate and honest in his writings."

This is just frothing-at-the-mouth-level crazy talk. You seriously expect us to believe that if a judge, in his order for judgment, says that the defense did not dispute the evidence for something when they actually did, that the defense would be quiet as a mouse about it?

"Interesting how you have no retort to the passage wherein Flanagan actually characterized Act 23 as an "unconstitutional regulation.""

My apologies, it got lost in there.

Context: "If an injunction issues, the election will go forward and constitutionally qualified voters will not be excluded. Difficulties may ensue but that is because an unconstitutional regulation had been unwisely attempted. If no injunction is issued, a clearly improper impairment of a most vital element of our society will occur."

How do you expect him to phrase it: "because a _potentially_ unconstitutional regulation had been unwisely attempted"? While at the same time (properly) maintaining that laws passed by legislature must be presumed to be constitutional until shown otherwise? You seem to be complaining that he's *not* a hypocrite.

Arguing that Flanagan is biased because of a lack of hypocrisy, he's biased because of the pathetic weakness of the defense, or frothing at the mouth claiming patently absurd things as his order for judgment bears no relationship to actual court proceedings ought to be beneath you.

@Mr. Tolley -

"Give me a break. ***"

Really? That sure sounds like an absolute conclusion to me! How exactly could one be more absolute? Compare to the way in which revered jurist Learned Hand drafted his rulings on requests for TRO's pending the hearing of a case. Night and day difference!

"If you don't want to read the ruling, you shouldn't pretend that you did. The basis for the plaintiff's case and the ruling is the Wisconsin Constitution"

Doesn't disenfranchisement mean to arbitrarily prohibit one from exercising a legally protected right that they otherwise possess? Same thing.

"Er... if the number of people who are electors…. ***"

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. The objective noticed fact is that state had an election that was held after the implementation of Act 23 and before any Court had enjoined its further implementation. Thus, why shouldn't this election be used as a baseline to determine if in fact implementation of Act 23 would have truly disenfranchised anyone? The Plaintiff's failed to present a single witness who claimed to have been disenfranchised during this election. How do you not see this monumental omission as being both relevant and wholly material to the Plaintiff's entire case?

"I have personally seen disenfranchisement…. ***"

Actually, what you witnessed was ignorance of and non-compliance with the law - not disenfranchisement. The 'vouching' system that we previously used was far too loose and prone for abuse and fraud. The elector you speak of could have cast a provisional ballot and returned with the proper documentation, had he elected to do so. Good riddance to 'vouching,' something that we NEVER should have embraced in the first place!

"This is just frothing-at-the-mouth-level crazy talk. ***"

I honestly don't know. And neither do you. That's why a transcript is required. If we're to trust trial judge's findings and summaries of fact, then why do appellate courts require the filing of a transcript from the trial? And we wouldn't typically hear about any complaints from the losing party until such time that an appeal was properly filed. It's also completely possible that the defense really dropped the ball here. In the legal world though, you never presume - you find out!

"My apologies, it got lost in there. ***"

I fail to see how I'm demanding that the judge commit hypocrisy. Was the entire sentence of "[d]ifficulties may ensue but that is because an unconstitutional regulation had been unwisely attempted," even necessary to convey the reasoning behind his decision? Looks like nothing but judicial dicta to me!

As I've said before, you're a very sharp guy and should definitely consider a career in the legal profession, as you make a most worthy adversary!

Have a good one!

@James Hoffa:

"How exactly could one be more absolute?"

More absolute would be summary judgement, as in Niess' ruling.

"Thus, why shouldn't this [Act 23-in-force] election be used as a baseline to determine if in fact implementation of Act 23 would have truly disenfranchised anyone? The Plaintiff's failed to present a single witness who claimed to have been disenfranchised during this election. How do you not see this monumental omission as being both relevant and wholly material to the Plaintiff's entire case?"

The judgment includes two examples (n.b. not an exhaustive list) of people who were apparently unable to obtain the required photo ID by the time of the hearing, which was after the February 21st election. Therefore they could not vote in that election.

"Actually, what you witnessed was ignorance of and non-compliance with the law - not disenfranchisement. The 'vouching' system that we previously used was far too loose and prone for abuse and fraud. The elector you speak of could have cast a provisional ballot and returned with the proper documentation, had he elected to do so."

My point there was not about the merits or demerits of vouching, but rather that the law regarding eligibility to vote had been changed and this family had no idea. The first that most people knew about this change to their ballot access was the day of the election, far too late to do anything about it. Act 23 slapped the duty of identifying and reaching out to those who would need ID onto the GAB, yet provided no appropriation for that despite the fiscal estimate report that said the additional costs could not be absorbed within the GAB's budget. I didn't see any billboards to TV ads.

It is one thing to make a new law that changes the penalty for a crime or creates a new one without ensuring that everyone has read it. It is a different situation, however, for someone to have the manner of exercising fundamental Constitutional rights changed without notice, for literally hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites to have no idea that they need to take actions that many can ill-afford until it is too late to do anything about it.

"If we're to trust trial judge's findings and summaries of fact, then why do appellate courts require the filing of a transcript from the trial?"

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously ruled that "A finding of fact made by a trial judge will not be set aside upon appeal unless it is contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence." (Boutelle v. Chrislaw). If Flanagan were making it all up and the defense actually *did* contest that recent investigations into vote irregularities had not shown any cases of voter fraud that were preventable by photo ID, we would surely be seeing example(s) of such cases plastered everywhere (your SEIU example hasn't even risen to the level of an indictment yet and your link showed no indications of what form the alleged fraud might have been, so we do not know either if fraud actually took place or if it did if it was photo ID-preventable and thus cannot be used as a counterexample).

Since there are no counterexamples, by the SC's precedent this finding of fact cannot be overturned on appeal unless new (as yet unreported evidence of enormous public interest) is presented by the defense.

"I fail to see how I'm demanding that the judge commit hypocrisy" - Flanagan properly indicated that Act 23 carried into his courtroom with it a presumption of constitutionality. To indicate that it should not be enforced - even temporarily - requires that it have been shown to be unconstitutional. The defense may revise its arguments or present further evidence at trial of course, but in order to issue the TRO against an Act of the Legislature Flanagan *must* have found that the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing showed it to be unconstitutional. To equivocate about this (as you demand else he be called partial) and simultaneously offer Act 23 its (proper) presumption of constitutionality would be hypocritical.

"As I've said before, you're a very sharp guy and should definitely consider a career in the legal profession, as you make a most worthy adversary!"

Thanks for the compliment, you tenacious old so-and-so.

@Mr. Tolley -

"More absolute would be summary judgement, as in Niess' ruling."

Well, that's an obvious, isn't it? Again, compare the way in which Flanagan wrote the TRO order vs how Judge Learned Hand (who's consider a standard in the legal world) wrote his. Again, there's a night and day difference here with Flanagan making far too many absolute conclusions of both fact and law.

"The judgment includes two examples (n.b. not an exhaustive list) of people who were apparently unable to obtain the required photo ID by the time of the hearing, which was after the February 21st election. Therefore they could not vote in that election."

Actually, the record provided by Flanagan doesn't indicate that such witnesses ever even attempted or had a desire to vote in that election, does it? You usually have to show a concrete injury before gaining proper standing (which I know was addressed by Flanagan, who word-smithed his way around such requirement) seeking declaratory relief from a court, much like a taxpayer can only challenge the constitutionality of a tax after having first paid it.

"My point there was not about…. ***"

Since when does the government ever advertise changes in the law on billboards or TV? There's a presumption in the law that everyone knows the law because 1) it's a part of their civic responsibility to do so, and 2) the open nature of our system of government. Additionally, the opposition to Act 23 made sure that there was plenty of media exposure regarding its ramifications. Your argument is weak, but commendable in its inferred nobility.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously ruled…. ***"

Clearly, the SEIU people who voted in that election had no intent to be indefinitely domiciled out of a Milwaukee area travel hotel when they cast such ballots, as they left the state shortly after the election and returned to their respective places of residency. While it may take the Milwaukee County DA a while to figure that out, it doesn't take a genius to recognize the fraudulent intent and activity that occurred here. How can you even deny this? And again, where did the standard come from that one must prove the existence of such fraud instead of the mere possibility of such to justify the legitimate state interest in Act 23? In fact, no such authority exists and Flanagan was just using his own subjective standards in place of any real legal authority in such regards. Textbook activism.

"To indicate that it should not be enforced - even temporarily - requires that it have been shown to be unconstitutional."

That's not true at all. The Plaintiffs' merely have to display a showing of potential success on the merits - that's a far cry from the standard of a de facto showing of unconstitutionality, which represents a MUCH heavier burden! In all reality, I never demanded that Flanagan display any kind of hypocrisy - you just started applying differing legal standards / burden of proof in your erroneous assessment. But nice try on the argument.

And here's morninmist, going off topic once again with a bunch of lefty/liberal nonsense!

Why do you continue to use the estimated jobs numbers instead of waiting for the revised jobs numbers, as we've all seen time and again just how skewed and inaccurate the estimated numbers really are each time the revised numbers are released.

Hoffa
You always fail to see the connection so I will point it out. You and other WI TeaGOP waste time and money on ALEC inspired issues while WI continues to lose jobs!!

The Dems wanted a special session for a jobs bills but Walker and the WI TeaGOP are not interested. All of WI citizens lose.

Have you got a link to the "jobs bills" the Democrats are proposing to bring before a special session of the legislature?

@morninmist -

What does that mean exactly - "jobs bills?"

More public sector jobs or jobs supported by taxpayer dollars?

bob
Here is one link. Find the others yourself.

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=275115

Sen. Miller: New jobs report shows need for jobs session
7/19/2012

Republican Leaders Reluctant to Come Off Campaign Trail

Madison – Senate Majority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) cited the recent June jobs report released today by the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) as further proof that a jobs session in necessary for the State Legislature. The DWD report showed Wisconsin lost 13,200 in June and the unemployment rate rose to 7% from 6.8% in May.

“The most recent DWD report showed Wisconsin lost another 13,200 jobs in June. The time for action is now yet Republicans continue to say they don’t want to come back into session this year. Republicans seem more concerned about keeping their jobs than doing anything to help others in the state get a job,” said Miller.

Earlier this week when asked by a reporter if there is nothing even small like some of the job training things the Senate Democrats have proposed that could have enough agreement to get through, Senator Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he was focused on what could be done next year in January and it would difficult to come back because people are busy with campaigns.

..

“Wisconsin workers shouldn’t have to wait until next year for the legislature to get to work on job creation. They want jobs now and they don’t care about whether or not there are elections coming up....

That's not a "jobs bills", morninmist. That's a press release.

Hoffa
Even the Walker Adm. seems to accept the job loss numbers. They, as usual are just blaming others, -not saying they are wrong.

http://dailyreporter.com/2012/07/19/wisconsin-loses-jobs-in-june-including-construction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyReporterGeneral+%28TDR+-+All+News%29

State, construction industry lose jobs in June (UPDATE)

July 19, 2012

By SCOTT BAUER

Associated Press

.....

Even so, the report is bad news for Gov. Scott Walker, who promised during the 2010 campaign and again in this year’s recall election that, over four years, the state would add 250,000 private sector jobs under his leadership.

He is far from meeting that promise. Based on the monthly estimates for 2012 and more accurate data from 2011, Wisconsin has added 45,315 jobs since Walker took office. With that pace, 120,804 jobs will be created by 2015, less than half what Walker promised.
....

Wisconsin’s 7 percent unemployment rate, which rose from 6.8 percent in May, was still below the national average of 8.2 percent.

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the latest figures were not a surprise, given the weak national job creation numbers released earlier this month. He said Walker’s top priority remains job creation and improving the state’s economy.

What's telling is Mark Miller's phrase "...“ Wisconsin lost another 13,200 jobs in June....".

Despite the fact that even the feds now confirm that, at least until May of 2012, Wisconsin has had a net job gain. Now Miller is trying to spin it as a "continuing job loss".

So it makes me wonder......how serious is the Democratic leadership about job creation, or is this just another joke to them!

@The Anti-Alinsky -

It's obvious that the Dems were never serious about wanting to work together. Their continued use of divisive rhetoric spun propaganda is proof positive of their true agenda and intent.

You've yet to provide a link to a "jobs bills". Your interpretation of a press release is not a "jobs bills". If they've got some solid proposal, it should be available. If you make a statement that they want a special session to consider "jobs bills", then it shouldn't be my job to find evidence to back up your statement.

Do you have a link to a "jobs bills"? If not, just admit it.

@morninmist -

If people need work as badly as you say, then can you explain why there are nearly 800 jobs openings for this one company in our state alone!

http://www.mcstate.com/careers/

But people can't find work that they qualify for?!?! Does it take a tech school degree to apply for a job at McD's? How exactly do you reconcile this?

Why can't these people apply for the job at McD's and work and save up to pay for their own tech school education instead of expecting the taxpayers to subsidize their education for them?

"If people need work as badly as you say, then can you explain why there are nearly 800 jobs openings for this one company in our state alone!"

The number of job openings gives little insight in and of itself about the job market: on one extreme, UnpleasantToWorkAtCorp Inc has 800 job openings because it only has 800 jobs and no-one can stand working there more than 24 hours and doesn't actually intend to change their number of employees.

On another extreme, TranquilPlace Inc may have 100,000 employees and 800 job openings with no intention of changing their total number of employees because the average employment duration is 10 years and it takes on average a month to find a suitable candidate for each position.

On another extreme, NewInHighDemandProducts Inc may have 800 job openings because they're desperately trying to meet their production needs.

On yet another extreme, DeathSpiral Inc may have 800 job openings because employees see that management are driving it into the ground and are jumping ship en masse in order to have more choice in the local jobs market before the company's deathspiral policies bear their rotten fruit.

So the number of job openings tells you very little about the job market. The number of job openings for a single employer tells you nothing about the job market.

@Mr. Tolley -

All valid points. However, when Hoffa personally visited a McD's that was hiring and spoke to the manager/owner, he informed that all the positions available on the website are indeed positions that the company/franchisees are looking to fill immediately. If you looked at the website, you'd see that many of these jobs have been seeking applicants for quite some time.

So, why is it taking so long to fill these 800+ very real job opportunities if people are as desperate for work as the numbers suggest they are? You haven't answered that question, did you?

@morninmist -

Another off-topic lemming regurgitation I see!

According to the opinion piece that you linked to, Lazich requested that the GAB "cross check Wisconsin’s voter registration rolls with a federal listing of noncitizen resident aliens known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database."

This appears logical because noncitizens do not have the right to vote and shouldn't be voting in our elections.

Rep. Zamarripa responded by claiming "that Lazich's real motivation might be to "purge lawful immigrant voters from Wisconsin poll lists.”"

Without any proof to back up such an assertion, Zamarripa's statement appears to be little more than a highly divisive and unfounded conspiracy theory.

Lazich responded to such nonsensical accusation by saying "“[w]hether it’s ignorance or intentional misrepresentation, Representative Zamarripa’s comment is absurd," and she's absolutely right.

So, exactly where is the 'outright lie' from Lazich exactly? The only person that appears to have told a lie in this controversy is Rep. Zamarripa.

Why hasn't Zamarripa provided evidence of her accusation against Lazich if she's telling the truth?

Blind accusations and divisive spin just proves that your side was never serious about wanting to work together!

Maybe you should change your screen name to liberal moron!

@morninmist -

What's there to talk about in assuring that the voter rolls are accurate? Why would Zamarripa object to a cross check of our voter rolls and a federal database? There was no reason to discuss this before doing it, because keeping non-citizens off the rolls is common sensical and an issue that I thought was non-partisan.

Lazich did not issue a press release after sending the letter to the GAB. Zamarripa was the one who ran to the press after learning about Lazich's letter, trying to make an issue out of nothing. Zamarripa was clearly trying to score political points. Lazich simply responded in kind via the press.

What's you intended goal by perpetuating such trash? Do you hope that people won't read, investigate, and learn the real truth? Don't you find it at all unethical to be pandering to the low information non-thinking types with this clearly deceptive garbage?

BTW - If Zamarripa doesn't have any proof to back up her allegations against Lazich, where's her public apology? Says a lot about Zamarripa's character and integrity, doesn't it?

Hoffa
Lazich did do a press release. Check the Wheeler report.

@morninmist -

Not that it really matters, or changes anything substantively, but you're right - Hoffa typed that comment up in haste. That sentence should have read:

"While Lazich did issue a press release after sending the letter to the GAB, Zamarripa was the one who used the press to launch a personal and highly partisan political attack against Lazich."

On a side note, I noticed that Lazich's letters are printed on recycled paper. Zamarripa's letters make no mention of the paper it's printed on. I thought that you lefties were big environmentalists, so what gives?

Hoffa
You are one that mentioned working together. But it is difficult to work together when Lazich goes behind Zamarripa's back and goes to GAB with a request to check the voting lists in his district. If she wanted to check voting lists, she could has started in her own district. And as I said, she should have been professional about it and discussed it first. But, given her history of yelling voter fraud at every chance she can get (and that applies to other WI TeaGOP like Vos and Grothmann), in retrospect, what she did is not unexpected.

The TeaGOP with ALEC is attempting to disenfranchise many voters across the US:

Coffee Bean ‏@CoffeeBean26

PA GOP admits no cases of voter fraud have been found http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/23/pennsylvania-gopers-concede-that-voter-fraud-claims-are-a-myth/ #VoterID #votersupression #ctl #p2 #Topprog #WIunion

...Given that voter fraud is a myth, why have Republicans been pushing voter ID laws so heavily? Because, as Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai said a few weeks ago, the voter ID law is “going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” While we think President Obama will still win Pennsylvania, Rep. Turzai is correct that these voter ID laws are about helping to elect Republicans.

The voter ID laws seek to achieve this partisan goal by establishing hurdles that will disproportionately impact people of color, poor people, the elderly, and college students. People who lack a photo ID (such as a drivers’ license) typically need to present either a birth certificate or a passport, plus two forms of proof of residency (such as a utility bill, lease, etc.), and then make at least one trip to the DMV, where they will likely have to wait in line for at least a few hours in order to get a photo ID. The evidence that these requirements will disproportionately impact people of color, the elderly, poor people, and college students is strong. For example:..