Image 01 Image 03

Courts Weaken Texas Voter ID Law, Uphold Wisconsin’s Law

Courts Weaken Texas Voter ID Law, Uphold Wisconsin’s Law

Texas compromised, but the DOJ believes the courts will reverse Wisconsin’s decision.

A federal judge has weakened the Texas voter ID law while the U.S. Court of Appeals suspended a ruling that eliminated parts of Wisconsin’s law.

Activists have gone after voter laws recently as the presidential election nears. They insist the poor and minority voters somehow cannot obtain an ID.

A judge scrapped the Texas law in July and forced them to go back to the table “to revamp its voter identification rules, finding that they disenfranchised minority voters.” They eventually agreed on this deal:

Under the deal, a voter whose name appears on the voting roll but who lacks the appropriate ID could cast a ballot after showing an item such as a valid voter registration card or a government document with the voter’s name and address.

The person would have to sign a declaration swearing that he or she has had a reasonable difficulty that prevented obtaining one of the accepted forms of photo identification.

Texas Attorney General will appeal the case, but explained “the state reached the deal due to the court’s time constraints.”

Now, up in Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals “suspended a July 19 ruling by a federal judge that struck down parts of” the state’s voter ID law:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Wednesday staying an injunction a district court judge issued last month allowing voters without legally-approved photo identification to vote by signing an affidavit saying they faced a “reasonable impediment” to getting such an ID.

The three-judge appeals court panel said that approach was too lax, even if some accommodation was necessary for voters who could not get identification with reasonable effort.

“Instead of attempting to identify these voters, or to identify the kinds of situations in which the state’s procedures fall short, the district court issued an injunction that permits any registered voter to declare by affidavit that reasonable effort would not produce a photo ID—even if the voter has never tried to secure one, and even if by objective standards the effort needed would be reasonable (and would succeed),” the appeals court panel wrote.

The Justice Departments claims, though, “that the district court’s decision is likely to be reversed on appeal and that disruption of the state’s electoral system in the interim will cause irreparable injury.”

In March 2015, the Supreme Court refused to review the case that challenged Wisconsin’s voter ID law after activists couldn’t believe the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Each “No ID” voter should be photographed and fingerprinted. Make voting crimes 20 year sentences.

Every one of these fraudulent voters disenfranchises a legitimate voter by neutralizing a vote. Why do these “judges” not care about my vote? Because I follow the rules?

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 10, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    I am perfectly fine with that. Of course someone is going to have to prove there really was voter fraud in each case. So far there have been precious few. I keep hearing about 1 woman in Ohio and 1 guy in NC.

    My guess is that about 1/2 the voter id laws will be in effect for this election. When Trump loses, he will still claim fraud. The sad part is Hillary really is a flawed candidate, but Trump can’t keep from giving her gifts.

    Is anybody really sure that they aren’t working together? Did she offer him a cost plus contract to build the wall?

      Interesting proposition. How does one prove fraud when the voting system lacks controls necessary to establish that proof to begin with? Or why are convictions the standard for whether fraud occurred?

      Here in Wisconsin, there is a substantial body of evidence that there is fact voter fraud occurring. The law here came out of an investigation into the 2004 presidential election. Among other things, the investigation found voting by people known to be dead at the time of the election, people reported as voting but told investigators that they did not vote, people who registered to vote using names and addresses that cannot be linked to any person.

      For example, over 60 people registered to vote, and in fact voted, using the address of a dormitory at University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. Those 60 people never lived in the dorm, and in fact were never students at the university. 60 people in one election from one address alone!

      Allowing those sixty votes meant that 60 real voters had their votes taken away, and could nothing about it.


        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Think38. | August 11, 2016 at 12:46 am

        “How does one prove fraud when the voting system lacks controls necessary to establish that proof to begin with?” Exactly. I guess you just assume it and we are supposed to bend over.

        “Here in Wisconsin, there is a substantial body of evidence” Again, are we just supposed to take your word for it. In everything else, we expect a study or a test or a trap. Something? Anything other than “investigators”. State investigators or volunteers? It takes proof.

        In 2012 in Ohio a group of tea partiers called “True the Vote’ set out to prove all kinds of fraud including illegal registrations. All they accomplished was to inconvenience a bunch of people by making claims about them that turned out to be false and unsubstantiated. Those people were inconvenienced by having to prove their rights. By a strange coincidence they were all registered democrats.

        BTW, I know 1st hand the potential inconvenience because my 95 year old father – born here and a WW II combat veteran, let his license expire and we moved him. I don’t live near him and it took considerable effort and some money to get his birth certificate, reinstate his license and get him registered. So I know it is not trivial. For some citizens it would be impossible without help that they do not have. Is Wisconsin providing any help?

        “For example, over 60 people registered to vote” Again, where is the proof? Scott Walker should be having a field day with that and the evidence should have influenced a judge who ruled there was no such evidence.

        From the judge’s decision: ” The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.

        The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot.

        However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book.”

        What is it with you people? You simply believe what you want and then you accuse those who don’t agree with you of being liars, frauds. cheats or stupid. That is funny considering that you nominated a grifter for president.

        Why hold the election? You already know, polls not withstanding, that Trump is the winner. Too bad it looks, really, really, bad , folks and I know what I am talking about, believe me, cause I can predict better than anybody and I am the best loser said Mr. Trump.

          My evidence is titled “Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004 General election in the City of Milwaukee” released in February, 2008. It was the final report from the investigation run by Milwaukee Police Department, the FBI, the United States Attorney’s office and the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office.

          Last known link for the 67 page report is here:

          You can read the preliminary findings here:

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 11, 2016 at 10:08 am


          Where is the official version? Your link is from and it doesn’t work. The preliminary version is not evidence. Besides it is from 2004!

          On the other hand Politifact rejects the claim as false. The ACLU, which BTW is not a left-wing organization, offers the following response.

          Since I had the good graces to read your link to a ‘preliminary’ version from an unofficial website, and to search for an official version, perhaps you will read the response.

          The internet is great. Anybody can stick anything out there. At least the ACLU is a nationally known organization. Who is or Those are great sites if you want to buttress what you already want to believe.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 11, 2016 at 10:19 am

          @Think38 Official Disclaimer

          When the task force was formed, the United States Attorney’s Office and Federal Bureau of Investigation limited their participation to the investigation of potential criminal violations. These agencies indicated that they would not be involved in any general evaluation of election procedures. As such, the recommendations and findings in this report are those of the Special Investigations Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department and do not reflect the views of the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other member of the task force.

          In 2004 the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, at the direction of District Attorney E. Michael McCann, participated with federal authorities and the Milwaukee Police Force in a Joint Task Force investigating possible voter fraud. Today’s Report is issued by the Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit, and contains that unit’s investigative findings, opinions and recommendations, especially relating to the management of elections within the City of Milwaukee. The findings, opinions and recommendations expressed in this Report will be closely considered by District Attorney John Chisholm as relevant to the investigation of future allegations of election related misconduct, but this office did not participate in the preparation of the report and is not endorsing the findings, opinions or recommendations of the report at this time.

          Since you can register online or by mail I am not sure why you are complaining that it was so much trouble for your father.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 11, 2016 at 1:23 pm

          @RWGinger I was pointing out how difficult it is to get a photo id. You are absolutely right that in NY we don’t require photo id to vote. I just have to sign.

          They do send me a postcard each year. They would strike me from the rolls if the postcard was returned. Then I would need to go before a judge. That would require photo id. It happened to a neighbor.

          I should have made that distinction.

          The final report no longer appears to be readily available online. Nevertheless, the final report was consistent with the final report, and details numerous instances in which ballots were cast using false names and addresses, among other items. Few criminal prosecutions resulted because there was no way to trace who in fact casts these ballots.

          Another link with the preliminary report is here:

          “The ACLU, which BTW is not a left-wing organization, offers the following response.

          This is a response by one of the attorneys involved in the case. Note that she looks to criminal prosecution as the measure. Yet there can be no criminal prosecution when there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who actually cast the ballots. Since Wisconsin has same day registration, the only way to catch and prosecute most of these is to catch them at the polling place.

          The date of the report is also highly relevant. The current case is evaluating the constitutionality of the statute proposed shortly after the report. As you know, the state of affairs at the time the legislation was passed is highly relevant to looking at the motive and purpose of the statute. Making voter fraud harder is a legitimate function for the legislature to consider.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Think38. | August 11, 2016 at 9:14 am

        I will read it, although I can’t help butbe skeptical. Yeah, the MSM is suppressing it and the judge was a hack. I don’t buy that based on a lifetime of experience. Nothing stays buried in this country.

        Look at the birther movement.

      “Trump loses, he will still claim fraud.”
      That’s a stellar argument *for* strict voter ID laws. So that when a candidate loses, he loses fair and square.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 11, 2016 at 9:28 am

        “That’s a stellar argument *for* strict voter ID laws.” Actually it is a stellar argument for NOTHING. No matter how strict the laws are, when Trump loses he will STILL claim it was fraud or unfair or rigged, because …. (fill in the reason). Trump’s whole brand is based on winning. You think he is ever going to admit he lost “fair and square” no matter what legal regulations you come up with. Based on the TRAP laws the right keeps coming up with, I would guess ‘Voter Id’ is just the beginning.

        There is also a stellar argument for not suppressing the vote of ANY citizen. I helped my dad re-register in 2012 and he voted for Romney. I just laughed.

        BTW, how many legitimate voters are purged? Want to take a bet on whether it is random? In Florida in 2000, 10’s of thousands were purged because they had names similar to felons or other specious reasons. By a strange coincidence this occurred in counties that usually voted strongly democratic.

    Old0311 in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 10, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    I would say execute the devils, but lots of demorat voters are already dead.

I like our voter ID process here in Kansas. Your driver’s license records if you’re a citizen or not, so when it is scanned, they can tell right there if you’re eligible. People who cannot validate their identity/citizenship are given provisional ballots, which are put in envelopes and kept separate.

My husband’s Indian coworkers were shocked and petrified when he told them that in Callifornia one doesn’t need an ID to vote. As a foreign-born citizen I have the same feelings. This falls under the “crazy Americans” category.
This should not require any kind of explanation. NoID= no vote. The harm done to a small number of people slipping through the cracks with this requirements pails in comparison to the potential of delegitimizing entire election and the whole democratic process when there is no proper mechanism of ensuring fairness.

    tom swift in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 11, 2016 at 1:15 am

    The only thing which makes it tolerable is that we have no conception of just how pervasive voter fraud really is. So we can plausibly pretend that it isn’t catastrophic, and that we have real elections.

    At least the good old days—when “overlooked” boxes full of uncounted ballots would mysteriously appear in the nick of time to overturn an election—seem to be over. I haven’t heard of any such shenanigans since 2008. But maybe they’re just better now at keeping it out of the papers.

      That’s probably because of the switch to electronic voting.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2016 at 1:32 pm

      If you “have no conception” ipso facto you don’t know anything.

      This is an amazing thread. A bunch of people who admit they don’t actually know anything, or present a bogus report as evidence, are obsessed with a crisis that they cannot see.

        Voter fraud is seldom demonstrated because every time there is a serious effort to actually look into voter fraud, the effort gets shut down. The empirical evidence, however, strongly suggests it: the hundreds of precincts around the nation that for years have never received so much as a single GOP vote; the number of occasions that additional votes are “found” in car trunks, behind filing cabinets, in someone’s house, etc.; the sheer viciousness with which bona fide investigations into voter fraud are attacked; the decades-long-standing sour jokes about the Democrat “dead vote”; and so forth. There is one heyuva lot of smoke out there to be categorically claiming that it’s only a single burning match.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to ss396. | August 11, 2016 at 4:11 pm

          I think the smoke is in your imagination. Every single time I ask someone to produce any proof they provide nada.

          You say there are “hundreds of precincts around the nation that for years have never received so much as a single GOP vote” Do you have a list? Can you document even one?

          Above, Think38 offered up a report who’s final version doesn’t exist and was disavowed by everyone except the detective who wrote it. You call that smoke? Then you are fuked.

          The only places where all the votes went to one candidate were Chicago in the ’60s, NYC in the late 19th century and early 20th and the Deep South when they disenfranchised African-Americans.

          Trump is already throwing in the towel.

    Pales in comparison

For all the discussion of voter suppression, TRUE voter suppression occurs when a valid vote is cancelled by a fraudulent vote

Doesn’t look too hard to hack the memory card on the Debold machine.

Every fundemental right should have the same requirement….if it takes an ID to exercise your second amendment rights, so should voting. The converse is also true. If you do not need a license for your first, you should not need one for your second. Be consistent…..

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to rabid wombat. | August 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    You need to register to vote. Are your guns registered?

      Do you really think registering a person to vote and registering an object have the same purpose?

      Cute rhetoric however.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 11, 2016 at 1:36 pm

        I was responding to the comment that starts “Every fundemental right should have the same requirement”

        BTW, in most places in the world, including functioning democracies, the answer is that there are valid purposes for registering both.

      In Texas, to purchase a firearm from a FFL, you must present an ID (in state for a pistol, I believe from an adjacent state for a long arm), fill in a 4473 (subject to perjury), and go through a background check – subject to the delays from the approving authority – before being given the firearm (a CCL changes the process a little, but adds a ton of burden). Let’s do that to vote….just like “keeping”.

      To bear an arm, expect to go to a class, submit finger prints, go through a background check – to get your “permission” to bear arms.

The Dallas Morning News details on what is necessary differ quite a bit from the original article.
According to DMN to vote ALL one has to do is sign an affidavit stating they are a US citizen and show some form of id which includes a bank statement or an utility bill.
That if true is a green light for fraud.

BTW True the Vote is a national organization of volunteers to try to stop voter fraud.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to RWGinger. | August 11, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    So far. True the Vote has been singularly ineffective and a pain in the butt to some unlucky citizens.

    Funny that you tout a partisan organization when we have a non-partisan organization, with impeccable credentials, that has a different take: League of Women Voters on Fraud

    Ironic that the moral right has chosen a candidate who brags that he beats his opponents when he negotiates. I always figured that a win-win is the best outcome. If you don’t screw someone, you can do more deals.

    It seems that the Right-wing recognizes that it cannot win a fair fight on any of its core issues. Winning seems to be more important that morality, truth or reality.

It seems to me that Obama and DOJ are actively doing their best circumvent the existing laws on several fronts.

In order to win the 2017 election the existing Administration needs voters and they just don’t care where they get them from legal or illegal. If you have an ineffective Voter ID law then any illegal immigrant can vote as many times as you want them to. Especially if they are promise citizenship and medicaid by Obama or Hillary.

We know, based on recent rulings that the supreme court votes based on what best for the party not on what best for the country. So corruption has reached into the White House, Department of Justice and the Supreme Court since the implementation of the existing deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants has been postponed until after the 2017 election.

You know of that this 5 million illegal immigrants will be just setting around and not doing any illegal voting!

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to 5Bill7. | August 11, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    There are some illegals who are criminals. But they are hardened or gang members. Voting, citizenship and Medicaid are not high on their list, although they may well commit Medicaid fraud.

    Besides, what is the mechanism? Do they get names from corrupt registrars? Do they register multiple times? How exactly does someone vote multiple times?

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | August 11, 2016 at 2:22 pm

Do you know of ‘any illegal immigrant who voted multiple times and received citizenship and medicaid from Obama or Hillary’?

I know a few illegal immigrants and they are scared sheetless to break any law.

All of these poor minority citizens need govt issued photo ID for Obama-Care, Welfare, Section 8 housing benefits, and probably for Obama-Phones. They need govt photo ID to buy beer, wine, liquor. They need govt photo ID to board a plane, to enter the U.S. District Court, and for so many other of life’s activities. I had to show my govt photo ID to deposit cash into my own bank account last week! They need govt photo ID to get a job (heaven forbid!!) or to rent an apartment.

Show me an eligible voter 21 to 50 years old who does not have govt photo ID!!!!

So where is the undue burden, for the vast majority of people who are legally entitled to vote? This entire thing is so much bullshit!

Maybe voter fraud is greatly exaggerated. But so is any claim that voter ID is discriminatory in any fashion.

    murkyv in reply to Geologist. | August 11, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    We’ve had SCOTUS approved Voter ID in Indiana since 2005.

    The left has still come up with absolutely no proof that the law has kept minorities from voting.

    Why other states don’t just mirror that law, I have no idea.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Geologist. | August 11, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    “So where is the undue burden, for the vast majority of people who are legally entitled to vote?”

    You illustrated the objection perfectly. Nobody is claiming that the vast majority is being disenfranchised. I am not sure why you chose 21-50 because the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 guarantee that every citizen has the right to vote – not just the vast majority.

    Strange as it may seem, there are people who have given sworn testimony concerning the difficulty they encountered. Yes it is the Huffpo and may emphasize the case against requiring ids, but it has more facts in it than in this article and all of the comments.

Gotta laugh at the hypocrisy. Obama’s Department of Justice brought this lawsuit against the state of Texas. Yet, any citizen who expects to gain entry to the DOJ Federal building in Washington DC. must show a photo ID. Come to think of it, it all begins to make sense now. They’re more concerned about the safety and security of federal bureaucrats than about the sanctity of the vote. Imagine my surprise

    Ragspierre in reply to gagge. | August 12, 2016 at 1:02 am

    All true. PLUS, if you want access to ANY federal court…including bankruptcy courts…you have to show picture ID.

    Nelson Mandela was all in for voter ID.