Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(155,157 posts)
2. Some of this is to be determined
Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:46 PM
Jul 2014

First, this may be an exercise in futility in that the law is still subject to an injunction in federal court and the DOJ just filed a rather well written amicus brief in that case. I will post links to the brief later (DU is not allowing me to cut and paste this minute). The evidence that going to the Department of Transportation offices is a burden is one of the basis for the Section 2 claim under the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection claim under the 14th Amendment. The Wisconsin law will never go into effect unless the 7th Cir. or the SCOTUS reverse the opinion of the federal judge in this case and that opinion is well written. In the Texas voter id case, the experts for the Department of Justice are documenting the costs of getting free ids for both the Section 2 claim and the equal protection claim under the 14th Amendment.

Second, I assume that there will be a form for the waiver prepared so that the voters will not have to do anything but sign the request. That is what is suppose to be happening in South Carolina. I believe that the voter will have to go to the DOT offices to get his/her picture taken for the free id. The opinion seems to state that this is not a burden. Again, this is only an issue if the federal injunction is lifted.

The language in the Wisconsin state supreme court opinion is good for the Texas voter id case on the poll tax issue.

I hope that this helps.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»Wisconsin State Supreme C...»Reply #2