Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in Nov

[GMDino]

https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/

Quote:Nine percent of registered voters in Wisconsin don’t have a valid voter ID and many are still struggling to get the documents they need to vote in November. It appears that Wisconsin is violating multiple court orders by not promptly giving eligible citizens free IDs or certificates for voting. This is particularly concerning, since early voting began this week in cities like Madison and Milwaukee and thousands of Wisconsinites are casting ballots. 


In an August ruling, US District Judge James Peterson said the IDPP was “unconstitutional” and “pretty much a disaster. It disenfranchised about 100 qualified electors—the vast majority of whom were African American or Latino—who should have been given IDs to vote in the April 2016 primary. But the problem is deeper than that: even voters who succeed in the IDPP manage to get an ID only after surmounting severe burdens.”

He ruled that “Wisconsin may adopt a strict voter ID system only if that system has a well-functioning safety net.” He said the state must “promptly issue a credential valid as a voting ID to any person who enters the IDPP or who has a petition pending.”

Wisconsin claims it is doing this. In a legal filing on September 22, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel cited a press release from the Department of Transportation stating, “DMV will now be issuing photo identification receipts no later than six business days from receipt of the petition application.” The Wisconsin Election Commissions issued a similar press release saying, “Free Photo ID for Voting Now Available with One Trip to DMV.” The Wisconsin attorney general said, “DMV is carefully administering the process to ensure that anyone who is eligible for the IDPP will have a valid ID for the November general election.”

But recordings from the DMV clearly show this is not the case. Molly McGrath, the national campaign coordinate for VoteRiders, which helps people get voter IDs, accompanied Moore to the DMV and recorded the trip. Read this exchange between her and DMV employees:

Quote:Molly: If you initiate the petition process do you get an ID for voting?
DMV Employee 1: No, you don’t get anything.
DMV Employee 2: No, you don’t get anything right away.
Molly: Ok, so even if we start the petition process, and it takes eight weeks, he wouldn’t be able to vote.
DMV Employee 1: Right, right, right.
DMV Employee 2: Well, I don’t know, they’re working on that. It’s kind of up in the air right now.
…Molly: I thought you could get an ID, like the sign says over there: “No birth certificate, no problem.” You can get an ID to vote.
DMV Employee 3: You can. It just takes the time.
Molly: So even if we just start the petition process, he wouldn’t get anything temporarily that says you can vote?
DMV Employee 3: Nope. Nope.

This is not just a problem in Madison. A volunteer for VoteRiders traveled to 10 other DMVs across the state to see what would happen to a voter who did not have a birth certificate and wanted to get an ID to vote.  DMVs told her “it’s going to take quite a while”  to get the credentials needed to vote and “it’s hard to predict” when that would be. 

Several suggested she get a birth certificate on her own.  One said it would be “easier for everyone” to have her purchase a birth certificate from her home state than it would be to use the petition process to get an ID to vote.  Most DMVs did not have IDPP forms readily available, but needed to hunt for them online, in a file drawer, or in a different part of the room. 

Overall, only three of 10 DMVs assured her that she would get an ID to vote in a week or less, as state law requires.  

“I’m worried there’s not a uniform process in place and it’s extremely unreliable from DMV to DMV,” McGrath says. “And that leaves me uncertain on how to advise voters about getting a voter-ID.”

Legal experts say they’re extremely troubled by the state’s continued failure to fairly enforce the voter-ID law. “Wisconsin has promised the court that voters would be able to get an ID with whatever documents they have,” says Sean Young of the ACLU.
“They’ve completely failed to live up to that promise.”

The state keeps frantically changing its procedures to mollify the courts, leading to even more confusion among voters. Last week the Walker Administration proposed issuing “voting purposes only” IDs that could not be used for anything else, like opening a bank account. “The Division of Motor Vehicles also wants the free IDs—born of voter-fraud fears – to be cheapened in quality, with some fraud protections removed,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

“The more they change the procedures, the clearer it becomes that this has nothing to do with voter impersonation,” Young says. “The whole process has no meaning anymore. It’s just a pointless obstacle to the right to vote.”

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down an affidavitthat voters could sign in lieu of showing strict ID because Wisconsin claimed everyone would get a voter ID who needed one. But that’s not happening. “As we’re seeing on the ground, people are going to be disenfranchised,” Young says.

Moore’s case is part of a disturbing pattern. Claudell Boyd, a 62-year-old African-American man, moved to Wisconsin last year to escape the violence in Chicago. But because the first name on his birth certificate was spelled Clardell—the result of a mistake caused his mother’s cursive handwriting—the Wisconsin ID he was issued also says Clardell. He made two trips to the DMV to try to fix his Wisconsin ID, bringing his Illinois state ID, Social Security card, and marriage certificate with the proper spelling of his name, but the DMV said he had to go back to Illinois to correct his birth certificate. He was not offered a certificate for voting or enrolled in the IDPP.
They said he either needed to change his name or his birth certificate.

“I don’t think that’s fair,” Boyd said. “I don’t think I should have to change my name after all these years just to vote…. I’m going to keep going to the DMV and arguing my point until somebody helps me.” Like Moore, he had voted twice for Obama and said he wanted to vote for Clinton in 2016 because “Trump is not somebody you want to be president.”

His parents were born in Mississippi, at a time when most African-Americans in the state couldn’t vote. Now history is repeating itself up north. “It looks like Wisconsin is making it harder for people like me to vote,” he said. 

[Benton]

nothing says you're getting constitutional requirements like a press release written by the people restricting you from your rights

[JustWinBaby]

Am I the only one who thinks it's racist to say requiring an ID to vote is racist?

[treee]

(10-01-2016, 02:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's racist to say requiring an ID to vote is racist?

Voter ID laws are usually prejudiced against the less fortunate, whom are disproportionally minorities.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2016, 02:51 AM)treee Wrote: Voter ID laws are usually prejudiced against the less fortunate

You really could have, and should have, stopped there.

Other than it's not really prejudiced - you need an ID to buy liquor, you need an ID to cash a check....

[GMDino]

(10-01-2016, 02:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's racist to say requiring an ID to vote is racist?

(10-01-2016, 04:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You really could have, and should have, stopped there.

Other than it's not really prejudiced - you need an ID to buy liquor, you need an ID to cash a check....

And if the state said they would give you a free on if you did A+b+c and then they didn't that would still be wrong.

All they do is change the wording and the rules but it is all aimed at making lower class citizens have a harder time to participate.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2016, 04:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You really could have, and should have, stopped there.

Other than it's not really prejudiced - you need an ID to buy liquor, you need an ID to cash a check....

There's no constitutional amendment that bans taxes on buying liquor or cashing checks, two things which are not rights. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2016, 02:51 AM)treee Wrote: Voter ID laws are usually prejudiced against the less fortunate, whom are disproportionally minorities.

These are also strategies that were used for decades in American history to overtly deny voting rights to minorities. 

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2016, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's no constitutional amendment that bans taxes on buying liquor or cashing checks, two things which are not rights. 

No one says it's racist to ask for an ID to buy liquor or cash a check - but if you refused either service to someone because they are black you have some major legal problems headed your way.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2016, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: These are also strategies that were used for decades in American history to overtly deny voting rights to minorities. 

Pffft. Was this during our lifetime?!?!?!  Did *I* write those laws or enforce them?!?!

[treee]

(10-01-2016, 04:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You really could have, and should have, stopped there.

Other than it's not really prejudiced - you need an ID to buy liquor, you need an ID to cash a check....

You did no refute my point just because you need an ID to do other things in life. Requiring an ID, unless made available without charge and conveniently, bars individuals from participating in the voting process. The individuals that are most affected by this are poor. Minorities are more likely to be poor. Therefor there is a correlation between voter ID requirements of most states and preventing minorities from voting.

Also, I find your condescension quite hilarious. 

[JustWinBaby]

(10-02-2016, 12:54 AM)treee Wrote: You did no refute my point just because you need an ID to do other things in life. Requiring an ID, unless made available without charge and conveniently, bars individuals from participating in the voting process. The individuals that are most affected by this are poor. Minorities are more likely to be poor. Therefor there is a correlation between voter ID requirements of most states and preventing minorities from voting.

Also, I find your condescension quite hilarious. 

It's the exact same thing with what I said.  You're ignoring it because it destroys your argument. 

Needing an ID to cash a check, or even buy liquor, is a bigger and more immediate impact on the lives of the poor.  But no one talks about it because the Democrat pollsters think making an ID about race rather than poverty equates to more votes.

Call it for what it is - Repub pandering that there is mass voter fraud, and Dem pandering that it's to disenfranchise blacks.  None of that is neither here nor there - you should have an ID.

Funny thing is, there are at least as many poor white people as poor black people. Just a numbers game. So if this is racist, then the question would have to be why do poor white people have ID's and poor black people don't?

[treee]

(10-02-2016, 05:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's the exact same thing with what I said.  You're ignoring it because it destroys your argument. 

What do you mean by this?

Quote:Needing an ID to cash a check, or even buy liquor, is a bigger and more immediate impact on the lives of the poor.  But no one talks about it because the Democrat pollsters think making an ID about race rather than poverty equates to more votes.

It is not difficult to live without an ID. I've met people who have and they were normal just like you or I, they just didn't have an ID.

Quote:Call it for what it is - Repub pandering that there is mass voter fraud, and Dem pandering that it's to disenfranchise blacks.  None of that is neither here nor there - you should have an ID.

You don't think it is odd that the amount of voter fraud up to this point is statistically negligible yet there are multiple states practically foaming at the mouth to get these laws through?

Quote:Funny thing is, there are at least as many poor white people as poor black people.  Just a numbers game.  So if this is racist, then the question would have to be why do poor white people have ID's and poor black people don't?

I guess it depends on what you define as poor. This census link shows that approximately 25 percent of African Americans are at or below the poverty line and just over 10 percent of whites are. 

[JustWinBaby]

(10-02-2016, 06:59 AM)treee Wrote: I guess it depends on what you define as poor. This census link shows that approximately 25 percent of African Americans are at or below the poverty line and just over 10 percent of whites are. 

Whites outnumber blacks 5 or 6 to 1.  So there are more white people - almost twice as many - living below the poverty line than black people. 

So how exactly are voter ID laws specifically targeting blacks?

[treee]

(10-02-2016, 08:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Whites outnumber blacks 5 or 6 to 1.  So there are more white people - almost twice as many - living below the poverty line than black people. 

So how exactly are voter ID laws specifically targeting blacks?

The laws are specifically targeting minorities because a higher percentage of every single minority is below the poverty line compared to whites. So while there are more poor white people in total, 1 in every 10 whites are "poor" whereas 1 in every 4 minorities are "poor" (on average). So voter ID laws affect minorities more in regards to the total percentage of their respective populations.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2016, 03:43 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No one says it's racist to ask for an ID to buy liquor or cash a check - but if you refused either service to someone because they are black you have some major legal problems headed your way.

You're attempting to go in a far different direction with your comparison to distract from the point of the thread. Stick with trying to explain why you can force someone to spend money on something that is required in order to vote despite there being a constitutional amendment to prevent forcing people to pay money to vote.

[GMDino]

(10-03-2016, 09:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're attempting to go in a far different direction with your comparison to distract from the point of the thread. Stick with trying to explain why you can force someone to spend money on something that is required in order to vote despite there being a constitutional amendment to prevent forcing people to pay money to vote.

Because it affects white people too!!!1!!!11!!!!  

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2016, 08:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Whites outnumber blacks 5 or 6 to 1.  So there are more white people - almost twice as many - living below the poverty line than black people. 

So how exactly are voter ID laws specifically targeting blacks?

So, were Jim Crow laws racist? Poll taxes, testing, all of those things that were barriers to voting in those laws also affected white people, probably in larger numbers than minorities, but they affected a greater percentage of minorities than white people. So your logic applied to Jim Crow would be that it was not racist.

I just want to make sure I understand your argument.

[*bfine32*]

Every U.S.Citizen should be allowed to vote; baring anything you have done to forfiet that right.

Every US Citizen should be provided with a photo voter's ID once they provide required documentation

Every US Citizen should then have to produce this ID to vote.

Timelines to obtain these ID's should be established and the cost of the ID should be a percentage of your taxable income (given a cap)

If you do not have the ID or wait too long to obtain the ID, you should not be able to vote.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2016, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, were Jim Crow laws racist? Poll taxes, testing, all of those things that were barriers to voting in those laws also affected white people, probably in larger numbers than minorities, but they affected a greater percentage of minorities than white people. So your logic applied to Jim Crow would be that it was not racist.

I just want to make sure I understand your argument.

Did Jim Crow specifically target blacks?

If your answer is yes, then you are on the road to understanding the difference.