What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate (1 Viewer)

Just like I predicted, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended one of the ruling blocking the WI Voter ID law ruling that it had gone too far and will most likely be overturned on appeal.

"Our  most  recent  decision  in  this  case  concluded  that  anyone  who  is  eligible  to  vote  in  Wisconsin,  but  cannot  obtain  a  qualifying  photo  ID  with  reasonable  effort,  is  entitled  to  an  accommodation  that  will  permit  him  or  her  to  cast  a  ballot," the unanimous panel wrote. "But  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.

"Because  the  district  court  has  not  attempted  to  distinguish  genuine  difficulties  of  the  kind  our  opinion  mentioned, or  any  other  variety  of  substantial  obstacle  to  voting,  from  any  given  voter’s  unwillingness  to  make  the  effort  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  a  state  can  require,  there  is  a  substantial  likelihood  that  the  injunction  will  be  reversed  on  appeal."

Next up on the list? Last Weeks ruling blocking parts of the Voter ID law (albeit narrower than the one that was just overturned) by Judge James Peterson.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Next up on the list? Last Weeks ruling blocking parts of the Voter ID law (albeit narrower than the one that was just overturned) by Judge James Peterson.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin's GOP got exactly the panel they wanted (Easterbrook, Sykes and Kanne), but it upheld Peterson's ruling for now. Although his ruling is usually grouped under the umbrella of "voter id", it really doesn't have anything to do with id's and the like at the polls, but addresses all the other voter suppression tactics typically found in these laws like restrictions on early voting, absentee voting and other measures meant to increase turnout.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wi-stay-2.pdf

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Wisconsin's GOP got exactly the panel they wanted (Easterbrook, Sykes and Kanne), but it upheld Peterson's ruling for now. Although his ruling is usually grouped under the umbrella of "voter id", it really doesn't have anything to do with id's and the like at the polls, but addresses all the other voter suppression tactics typically found in these laws like restrictions on early voting, absentee voting and other measures meant to increase turnout.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wi-stay-2.pdf
Click to expand...
I don't see those as voter suppression tactics at all. :shrug:

 
mr. furley said:
have fatguy and Maurile weighed in on this yet?

cliff's notes if they have?
Click to expand...
On what? Voter ID laws?  I think Maurile and I agree that in-person voter impersonation is extraordinarily rare and therefore voter ID laws are at best a big waste of time.  At worst they're deliberately designed to make it more difficult for certain people to vote.

 
sho nuff said:
They have been shown to be targeted in certain areas...and targeting certain voting blocks in nearly every case.

Anything that is aimed at lowering turnout...is by definition suppression.
Click to expand...
State laws obviously target the state.

I don't believe every voting law meant to expand access to voters should be written in stone once passed.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
On what? Voter ID laws?  I think Maurile and I agree that in-person voter impersonation is extraordinarily rare and therefore voter ID laws are at best a big waste of time.  At worst they're deliberately designed to make it more difficult for certain people to vote.
Click to expand...
ok. then i'm on the right side of this one. :thumbup:  

i thought it had been proven that voter id was a deliberate attempt to suppress the vote. in fact, i thought Scott Walker admitted it recently. can't remember where i saw that but that's what i thought i'd heard.

 
jonessed said:
State laws obviously target the state.

I don't believe every voting law meant to expand access to voters should be written in stone once passed.
Click to expand...
They target the state...yet...when its shown that certain voting blocks use a certain method...and the opposite party works to limit that method of voting.  No bother.

:lmao:

 
Breaking: Fed court rules that "the Texas voter photo identification bill, SB 14,1 was passed with a discriminatory purpose" #txlege

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PlasmaDogPlasma
US Court of Appeals rules that the Internet is a utility
Replies
3
Views
354
Jayrod
Jayrod
fatness
Court allows Brian Flores's case to proceed in court, not arbitration
Replies
3
Views
211
Bri
B
rojbk
The Case Against Immigration
Replies
5
Views
963
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top