Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan temporarily halted Wisconsin\'s new voter ID law until an April 16 trial, which means that voters won\'t need to show a photo ID for the April 3 election.<br /><br /><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/Order_Granting_Injunction.pdf\">Flanagan\'s order granting a temporary injunction</a> strikes at the heart of the Republicans\' reasoning for passing Act 23, or what he calls “the single most restrictive voter eligibility law in the United States.”<br /><br />The plaintiffsthe Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP, Voces de la Frontera and othersbase their argument on the Wisconsin Constitution, where the right to vote is explicitly guaranteed. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, includes no such guarantee.<br /><br />Since the right to votea “sacred” rightis guaranteed by the state Constitution, lawmakers have to tread lightly when devising laws that impact voting. <br /><br />Flanagan\'s order shows that the new law does the exact opposite, by creating an undo burden on the estimated 221,975 qualified voters in Wisconsin who do not have acceptable photo ID that would allow them to vote. The law disproportionately affects the elderly, indigent voters and members of a racial minority.<br /><br />The judge also found that there was no evidence that the voter ID law would prevent voter fraud:<br /><br /> <blockquote>The plaintiffs do not dispute, and the court certainly accepts fully the value of maintaining the accuracy and security of the ballot process. 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. Photo identification does offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee.<br /></blockquote><br />Flanagan also noted that there\'s no safety net for those who don\'t have an acceptable photo ID. You either have it at the polls on Election Day or you cast a provisional ballot and produce an acceptable ID within three days. That stands in stark contrast to Indiana\'s voter ID law, for example, which allows voters without an acceptable ID to cast a ballot if they sign an affidavit confirming their identity.<br /><br />Flanagan argued that the plaintiffs would win at trial and prove that the voter ID law is unconstitutional:<br /><br /> <blockquote>Act 23 is addressed to a problem which is very limited, if indeed extant. Seemingly it fails to account for the difficulty its demands impose upon indigent, elderly and disabled citizens who are qualified under the constitution to vote. It offers no flexibility, no alternative to prevent [the] exclusion of a constitutionally qualified voter. By contrast, the sweep and impact of the law is very broad. Given the sacred, fundamental interest [at] issue, it is very clear that Act 23, while arguably addressing a legitimate concern, has not been sufficiently focused to avoid needless and significant impairment of the right to vote. The enactment steps beyond the proper authority of the legislature and is in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article III, Section 1.<br /></blockquote><br />
|
|
