Actually, that vote in Wisconsin has held at 11:00 >>AM

(Oops, I guess the arrowhead brackets I added for emphasis must've signaled the end of the comment, or something, so it's a good thing I copied my comment to my "clipboard" before posting, so I can repost it w/o those brackets...)

Actually, that vote in Wisconsin has held at 11:00 AM (see the video). Maybe you were thinking f the long debate they had into the night during the amendment phase before that (but then they limited debate on the actual bill to a whole hour). I had to work, but I work on the other end of State Street, a short walk from the Capitol, and I was listening online via Wisconsin Eye. When they got to the actual vote, I heard all the commotion going on, but I couldn't see what was going on, since I wasn't able to get the live video stream for some reason, so I decided to use my lunch break to go down to the Capitol and find out what the heck had just happened, and some of my fellow protesters (whom I've seen a lot of the last few months!) who were there filled me in.

These laws must be challenged in the courts, one state at a time. Right now!

In WI, Dems must seek a restraining order preventing this law from taking effect before the recall. The recall is the last chance for voters to restore democracy. Get on the stick, please!

Henryclay @4 wrote:

These laws must be challenged in the courts

Good luck with that. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo ID law in a 6 - 3 decision.

Better that those involved in the recall take steps to aid citizens to obtain photo IDs. There needs to be a massive get-out-the-vote drive. The very survival of constitutional democracy in WI depends on it.

Felix - Thanks for the correction! That one was my fault (not Ernie's) as I added in the time during the edit. Have now fixed appropriately.

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam, sock puppetry. BF]

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam, sock puppetry. BF]

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam, sock puppetry. BF]

Good post Ernie.

The bleep goes on.

The minuscule voter problems targeted while the mega-problem of using corruptible voting machines, instead of paper ballots counted in a competent manner, seems to be considered irrelevant.

Nice work on this as usual, Brad Blog team.

The new SOS in Colorado, a high-profile GOP campaign finance attorney, tried and failed to push the "voter fraud" line here, coming up with his own half-baked data and testifying in the state House and Senate in favor of a bill he essentially wrote that would have granted him sweeping powers to throw voters off the rolls. He also took his b.s. data to Capitol Hill and testified there. His bill passed the GOP-controlled House but was killed in the Dem-controlled Senate.

http://tinyurl.com/3grwepy

JT -

Great article you've got linked over at the CO Independent. Wish more journalists covered what's going on exactly like that. This is, make no mistake, an all out War on Democracy by the GOP.

That is not some partisan opinion of mine. It is merely plainly observable, independently verifiable fact.

And while CO was lucky to have pushed back this latest assault in the state by the new GOP SoS, as my own experience following this stuff over the last decade informs me, they will be back --- year after year, session after session, until the moment they get a favorable (read: GOP) House, Senate and Governor to institute their anti-democracy voter suppression legislation. That, of course, is much easier for them than actual advocating for policies that the majority of voters might actually support at the ballot box.

Thanks for staying on top of it! And holler whenever we can help!

Elections are, ”…the heart of the democratic process.” But, in spite of court-testified wrongdoings and admitted crimes in a Pima County election:

1) The Pima County Attorney says she has “no jurisdiction” over county elections.

2) County Superior Court Judge, Harrington, ruled his court had “no jurisdiction” over the 2006 RTA election – whether there was massive vote-theft or not.

3) Secretary of State claims “no jurisdiction” to examine election computer databases.

4) Attorney General Goddard refused to examine RTA ballots and ignored the crimes admitted in Harrington’s civil trial (Ford v. etc. 2008)

5) Attorney General Horne will not examine RTA ballots or computer databases.

6) The United States Attorney will not answer inquiries.

Original article ...

GOP 2010 Tide? Do you really believe they won all those races legitimately? Think again.

http://richardcharnin.co...MidtermsPostElection.htm

Let's look at the 2010 House and Senate pre-election polls: RV vs. LV http://richardcharnin.co...ectionForecastModels.htm

The 2010 House and Senate Forecast Models are based on a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls.

The LV Model predicts a 234-201 GOP House and a 50-48 Democratic Senate. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts a 233-202 GOP House and a 49-49 Senate. Electoral-vote.com has a 51-48-1 Democratic Senate and a 217-200 GOP House with 18 ties. But the registered voter (RV) projections tell a different story.

The Democrats lead the weighted average of 18 Senate RV polls by 8.5%. They lead the corresponding LV sub-samples by 0.9%.
The RV projections indicate a 53-45 Democratic Senate.

The GOP leads the latest 30 House Generic LV polls by 6.8%. They lead the latest 19 RV polls by just 0.7%.
The RV projections indicate a 221-214 Republican House.

The Democrats lead in the following Generic Ballot RV polls: Pew, ABC/WaPo, CBS/NYT, McClatchy/Marist, Newsweek, NBC

Both House and Senate models assume an even UVA split of the undecided 10%.

Pre-election (RV) polls interview registered voters. Likely voters are a sub-sample based on the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). Media pundits and political sites such as realclearpolitics.com focus on LV polls during the final weeks of every election cycle while RV polls are phased out a month before the election.

Pollsters claim that LV polls are good predictors – and it’s partly true. Since the 2000 selection, LV polls have matched to the fraudulent recorded vote quite well.
But RV polls more closely matched the True Vote - before the miscounts.

From the 14 points of fascism. This is number 14.

Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From the book, They Thought They Were Free.

If you google the 14 points of fascism , you will see that it is a description of US.

Funny how so much voter fraud seems to be connected to Rethuglicans themselves from Mitch Daniel's Secretary of State to Ann Coulter to all those young men Patrick McHenry had living with him in North Carolina to McHenry himself taking a homestead exeption in D.C. while still voting in North Carolina.

Voter Photo Id Statutes: Crawford V. Marion County Election Board A Greater Threat To (d)emocracy Than Citizen’s United

The right to vote is, probably, the most important right of citizenship. Voter Photo ID statutes together with the corporate propaganda activities authorized and approved by the Supreme Court's in its decision in the Citizens United case, pose huge threats to (d)emocracy. Unfortunately, there has not been publicity regarding the 2008 decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding Indiana's statute requiring a state photo ID for a voter to cast a vote. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U. S. ____ (2008) http://www.law.cornell.e...supct/html/07-21.ZS.html the United States Supreme Court gave a state the right to disqualify and disenfranchise otherwise qualified resident voters, who did not have a state approved picture ID. The Court based its decision on finding there were valid state interests in creating voter confidence and the prevention of voter fraud. In spite of the Court’s recognition “The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Further, after re-approving a prior US Supreme Court decision finding that a poll tax was legally unacceptable and impermissible. However, the majority went on to find that Indiana's provision of a “free” state ID, which required that the person had to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles present a birth certificate or other identification, which the court agreed in many cases had to be procured for a cost, was not tantamount to a poll tax. The court stated:

"To obtain a photo identification card a person must present at least one “primary” document, which can be a birth certificate, certificate of naturalization, U. S. veterans photo identification, U. S. military photo identification, or a U. S. passport. Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 140, §7–4–3 (2008). Indiana, like most States, charges a fee for obtaining a copy of one’s birth certificate. This fee varies by county and is currently between $3 and $12. See Indiana State Department of Health Web page, http://www.in.gov/isdh/bdcertifs/lhdfees/toc.htm. Some States charge substantially more."

Crawford at n. 17
Further, the Court stated:

"Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote."

In Crawford the Court recognized that at the time of passage of the statute there were at least 43,000 voters without acceptable photo ID cards. Crawford at n. 20. However, the court went on to find: “… even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.” The Court, also, rejected the argument that this Statute was designed to disenfranchise Democratic voters stating:

"It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper.
But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9. "(Emphasis Supplied)

Thus, a number of the arguments against Voter ID bills that have been put forward by liberal commentators and opponents of recent Voter ID legislation have already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, wherever these voter photo ID statutes have been enacted, Democrats must immediately start programs to get state approved photographic ID cards to their likely voters.
Finally, whereas, Citizens United gives corporations, undisclosed entities, and persons with money the unfettered right to spend money to persuade voters. When they lie about issues, there is always a chance that the falsehoods and lies will ultimately be exposed (witness Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, etc.), voters will see the truth, and vote the rascals out of office. However, the Crawford decision, upholding statutory requirements for state approved photographic ID and other new voting requirements, disenfranchises qualified voters. The voter’s right to vote is stolen. Citizens are denied there right to elect their government representatives. The chances of voting the rascals and their minions out of office, becomes difficult, if not impossible. (d)emocracy dies.

Peter J. Krieser
Lawyer
Minnesota
Former Minnesota Assistant Attorney General, retired, (Manager of Minnesota AGO Health Licensing Division [1999], Senior litigation attorney [Senior Advocate] Minnesota AGO Health Licensing Division [1999-2009])

Peter J. Kreiser writes @18 wrote:

"Thus, a number of the arguments against Voter ID bills that have been put forward by liberal commentators and opponents of recent Voter ID legislation have already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court."

Actually, not, Peter.

The very language you cite --- that the challenge in Crawford was a "facial" rather than an "as applied" attack on the IN statute --- underscores that a plaintiff who could present an undue burden or evidence of invidious discrimination could produce a different result.

The lead opinion, in Crawford, specifically discusses the availability of photo ID in IN free of charge and specifically concluded that the statute does not impose an undue burden.

As to the reference to "liberal commentators," I would respectfully suggest that read my follow up piece wherein I quote John Tanner, who had served as the Chief of the DoJ’s Voting Rights Division in the Bush II administration.

Tanner can by no stretch of the imagination be described as a “liberal.”

But then, the words “liberal” or conservative are meaningless. Election integrity is not about left or right. It’s about right and wrong.

I am also surprised, Peter, that you would bring up Crawford in relation to this piece, rather than my follow-up piece. The mere fact that the Supreme Court rejected the facial challenge in Crawford does not mean than any other state is required to pass photo ID legislation or that such legislation is a good idea. In a democracy, disenfranchisement is never a good idea.

Finally, Peter, I have to take exception to your use of the words "voter ID." Voters identify themselves when they register to vote and when they sign in at the polls. The laws in question require "photo ID" precisely because the GOP understands that the highest percentages of citizens who do not have photo IDs are the same citizens who would not likely vote for the GOP.

As Mr. Canning's excellent article so aptly points out, statutes requiring photographic voter ID is a Conservative v. Liberal issue. My position is that voting should be easy for any American citizen, and there should be no unnecessary impediments to prevent eligible voters from voting. For example, currently, Minnesota has one of the nation’s easier voter registration requirements, low voter fraud allegations (less than10 prosecutions), and highest per capita voting rates. We have had two clean elections where (1) the Democratic Senator (Franken 2008) was elected by less than 500 votes and, (2) the Democratic Governor (Dayton 2010) was elected by less than 9,000 votes. Unnecessary statutory impediments that reduce voter turnout are an assault on democracy. On this I believe that Ernest and I agree.
When I wrote my comment, I realized that the decision in Crawford was made on the basis of a “facial attack” of the Indiana photographic ID requirement voting statute. I did not mean to convey that the Constitutionality of voter photo ID statutes as they are applied was decided. However, the Crawford Court took factual findings and judicial notice of facts into consideration. It is worrisome that the Crawford Court so easily disposed of the argument, that in order to obtain a photographic ID card in Indiana, persons might have to expend money to first obtain a birth certificate or other form of acceptable identification, and obtain transportation to the local Department of Motor Vehicle office, is tantamount to a poll tax. It is also concerning that the Court would suggest that 43,000 registered voters, who, the Court recognized, did not at the time of the passage of the statute have adequate identification to vote, was not problematic. Finally, the Court also recognized that voter fraud had not occurred in Indiana, so the voter photo ID statute was “fixing” a non-existent problem.
A number of the arguments against Voter photo ID statutes remain. For example:
 First, there is an “Equal Protection” argument based on the fact that many, if not most, of the people who obtained a photographic driver’s license never had to produce a birth certificate or other independent form of identification. All of these photographic voter ID bills and statutes require the applicants produce underlying identity documents (birth certificates, baptismal certificates, or other approved independent forms of identification) in order to obtain a state issued photographic ID card. So under these statutes to exercise the right to vote an American must obtain a voter photographic ID, and to obtain a photographic voter ID you have to “produce your papers.” Whereas, many, if not most, of the people who currently possess a driver’s license never had to produce a birth certificate or other independent form of identification to obtain their photo driver’s license. Regarding the reliability and effectiveness of using a photo driver’s license for identification, consider how many prosecutions occur statewide per year for use of fake, phony or altered driver’s licenses used by persons for access to bars, automobile purchases, fraudulent check cashing, etc., versus the number of prosecutions for voter fraud per election. Yet, without further documentation requirements these voter photo ID laws accept a photo driver’s license. Thus, there is no rational basis for excepting people with photo driver’s licenses from producing the same independent documentation, as those without. Unless there is a requirement that all persons must provide equivalent underlying documentation to obtain a state approved photo voter ID there is a basis for a claim of denial of Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment.
 Second, some of the recently passed voter photo ID statutes require a fee for the State Picture ID which should be ruled to be a poll tax.
 Third, more reliable “scientifically acceptable” polling and demographic evidence showing voter disenfranchisement, especially of minority voters, may serve as a basis for finding photo ID statutes unconstitutional, or violating of the Voting Rights Act.
 Fourth, some of these photo ID statutes do not provide enough time for fair and reasonable implementation before their effective date.
Surely, there are other arguments.
I believe that a democratic society is based upon voter accessible, free and fair elections. Elections where citizens, who should be eligible voters, are not disenfranchised because of discriminatory unnecessary statutory impediments to their voting. On this I assume Ernest and I agree. Further, I am concerned that Crawford is a first step by the Supreme Court toward approving these voter photo ID statutes, which impede voting. This should not be a Liberal v. Conservative issue, but the ultra-right wing corporatist Republican legislators, pundits, think tanks, governors, and jurists, who have sought to restrict voting and “cage” voters, have made it such. Thus, it is important for liberal commentators, pundits and the public to be made aware of the decision in Crawford and the reasoning and statements of the Crawford Court. Based on what I hear on liberal talk radio and MSNBC they are not aware. These unnecessary voter photo ID statutes restrict voter accessibility and threaten democracy.
Peter Krieser