WI Gov Walker blocks voters by closing 10 DMV offices - Democrats can't get voter IDs

[WildCat]

I am sure that comparing all of the thumbprints would get rather expensive as well.
Yes, yes it would. I wonder how much it costs to cross-check 130 million thumb prints with each other?

[WildCat]

BTW, back to the topic... is anyone even attempting to show that the closed DMV offices are in Dem districts? Or is it acknowledged that Brad Blog just pulled that out of his feces hole and Ginger ate it up at the words "Scott Walker"?

[respect]

You are if you don't have fingerprints.

Won't anyone think of the amputees?

[respect]

BTW, back to the topic... is anyone even attempting to show that the closed DMV offices are in Dem districts? Or is it acknowledged that Brad Blog just pulled that out of his feces hole and Ginger ate it up at the words "Scott Walker"?

Even if they were largely in Democratic leaning districts, that alone would not be evidence that this is a deliberate plot to stop Democrats from voting. Nor would it be a very good one even if it were.

[WildCat]

Now the Dems will have to steal the election the old fashioned way, by busing up to Wisconsin nursing homes to "help" near-comatose seniors fill out absentee ballots for Democrats. :p

And I'm not making that up either, I actually know a guy who did that in 2004.

[WildCat]

Even if they were largely in Democratic leaning districts, that alone would not be evidence that this is a deliberate plot to stop Democrats from voting. Nor would it be a very good one even if it were.
And these are all tiny part-time offices in rural areas, not exactly prime territory for Democrats.

[respect]

Now the Dems will have to steal the election the old fashioned way, by busing up to Wisconsin nursing homes to "help" near-comatose seniors fill out absentee ballots for Democrats. :p

And I'm not making that up either, I actually know a guy who did that in 2004.

I thought zombie voting was their old fashioned strategy.

[respect]

And these are all tiny part-time offices in rural areas, not exactly prime territory for Democrats.

That is just what the Walker/Koch League of Cartoonish Super Villainy wants you to believe.

[Neally]

See news stories posted above. Nobody should ever be denied the right to vote merely because their "papers are not in order."Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.

Ideally, yes. The constitution does not say "you have the right to vote if you register" - it says you have the right to vote.Wrong. The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote, however it never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example.

The qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote.

The 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Again there is no blanket "right to vote" in the constitution.

[BenBurch]

So you prefer a system you acknowledge allows fraudulent votes to be cast? What's the point?

There is an almost vanishingly small problem that is better solved by a leaky system than by disenfranchisement.

[Ziggurat]

There is an almost vanishingly small problem that is better solved by a leaky system than by disenfranchisement.

I see the "disenfranchisement" problem as vanishingly small. The only cases pointed to so far were due to ignorance of the changes, not the changes themselves.

[leftysergeant]

Again there is no blanket "right to vote" in the constitution.Except where any group is given the franchise. Then it has to be pretty nearly all-inclusive unless, by due process of law, a citizen is placed in a non-voting category.

Any attempt to remove eligible voters without that due process of law is committing a crime under the equal protection provisions.

You are quibbling.

[leftysergeant]

I see the "disenfranchisement" problem as vanishingly small. The only cases pointed to so far were due to ignorance of the changes, not the changes themselves.Tell that to the people of Florida who didn't get to vote because some vapid twit didn't cross-referrence their names in any way to be sure that it was them ands not some out of state turd with the same name who was a convicted felon, and then didn't even give them a chance to correct the error.

Voters are entitled to the due process of law before some dirtbag like Harris denies them the rights that she or her idiot alleged boyfriend has.

[WildCat]

There is an almost vanishingly small problem that is better solved by a leaky system than by disenfranchisement.
What "disenfranchisement"?

And the GAO disagrees with you, and reported that while small the numbers are large enough to affect close elections.

[WildCat]

Tell that to the people of Florida who didn't get to vote because some vapid twit didn't cross-referrence their names in any way to be sure that it was them ands not some out of state turd with the same name who was a convicted felon, and then didn't even give them a chance to correct the error.

Voters are entitled to the due process of law before some dirtbag like Harris denies them the rights that she or her idiot alleged boyfriend has.
Hey lefty, we're talking about voter ID laws. Why don't you start athread about Harris since that 11 year old election that had nothing at all to do with voter ID laws still sticks in your craw?

[Neally]

Except where any group is given the franchise. Then it has to be pretty nearly all-inclusive unless, by due process of law, a citizen is placed in a non-voting category.A "group" by definition is not a blanket right.

Any attempt to remove eligible voters without that due process of law is committing a crime under the equal protection provisions.

And requiring an ID is legal and thus following due process.

[leftysergeant]

A "group" by definition is not a blanket right.All citizens must enjoy equal access to the polls. Il Duce is trying to work around that.

And requiring an ID is legal and thus following due process.

Within reason, yes. Making it extremely dificult or charging a fee for it is not. Giving the impression that there is a fee to fleece the unsuspecting is still an attempt to trick people out of obtaining the ID. Making it absurdly hard to obtain the ID is an attempt to deter people from registering.

[leftysergeant]

Hey lefty, we're talking about voter ID laws. Why don't you start athread about Harris since that 11 year old election that had nothing at all to do with voter ID laws still sticks in your craw?I mention it in response to the absurd claim that the GOP does not have an egregious record of dirty dealing in recent elections and that they have incrementally increased their own ability to do so.

[Cobalt]

All citizens must enjoy equal access to the polls. Il Duce is trying to work around that. Must, huh? Surely you can prove that'n.



Within reason, yes. Making it extremely dificult or charging a fee for it is not. Giving the impression that there is a fee to fleece the unsuspecting is still an attempt to trick people out of obtaining the ID. Making it absurdly hard to obtain the ID is an attempt to deter people from registering.

And you can obviously prove that's the goal of the WI situation. Good luck!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

BTW, back to the topic... is anyone even attempting to show that the closed DMV offices are in Dem districts? Or is it acknowledged that Brad Blog just pulled that out of his feces hole and Ginger ate it up at the words "Scott Walker"?

I think that ship has pretty much sailed. The claim in the OP has been destroyed.

Now we've moved on to discussing voter IDs themselves, as a seperate topic.

[Grizzly Adams]

Ideally, yes. The constitution does not say "you have the right to vote if you register" - it says you have the right to vote.
Where does it say that?

[cwalner]

I think that ship has pretty much sailed. The claim in the OP has been destroyed.

Now we've moved on to discussing voter IDs themselves, as a seperate topic.

fair enough. I am against them. As I stated before the evidence often cited in favor of such laws (ie of voter fraud) is pretty anemic and seems mostly in the minds of its supporters.

As such, I see them as a solution in search of a problem, and therefore consider them bad law. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS correctly pointed out that bad law != unconstitutional. I would like to see the law repealed here in Indiana, but I am also a realist and do not that as very likely.

I am also not going to take the apocalyptic stance that some here have taken and claim that such laws actually disenfranchise voters without evidence to support it. I strongly believe that they can do such (although clearly not the intention) and for me that is sufficient to argue that they should be repealed (or not passed in the first place).

[BenBurch]

Where does it say that?

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[BenBurch]

Hmmm... Half of what I put in that last message disappeared. In any case, there is definitely a right to vote in the constitution, its most explicit in the Amendments, but absolutely was an implied Right.

The reason we got a Bill of Rights was because the founding fathers were afraid that if they did not spell out the Rights everybody had, somebody would come along and construe that they were not there.

The counter-argument was that if we enumerated Rights, people would later construe that no other rights exist, which was also not their intentions. Hence Amendments 9 and 10.

[Neally]

Within reason, yes. Making it extremely dificult or charging a fee for it is not. Giving the impression that there is a fee to fleece the unsuspecting is still an attempt to trick people out of obtaining the ID. Making it absurdly hard to obtain the ID is an attempt to deter people from registering.Good thing that isn't been done then in WI.

[leftysergeant]

Good thing that isn't been done then in WI.You haven't been paying attention.

[Neally]

In any case, there is definitely a right to vote in the constitution, its most explicit in the Amendments, but absolutely was an implied Right.
Nope. Again WRT voting, the Constitution is more about what explicitly can't be done rather that broad rights like freedom of speech or religion. That's why states can make up their own rules on who does and does not get to vote as in my Texas example, as long a it doesn't violate the explicit prohibitions enumerated in the constitution.

You haven't been paying attention.We've covered it in detail for 7 pages. The WI law is not about disenfranchisement, and particularly not about a GOP conspiracy to disenfranchise Dems.

[cwalner]

Hmmm... Half of what I put in that last message disappeared. In any case, there is definitely a right to vote in the constitution, its most explicit in the Amendments, but absolutely was an implied Right.

The reason we got a Bill of Rights was because the founding fathers were afraid that if they did not spell out the Rights everybody had, somebody would come along and construe that they were not there.

The counter-argument was that if we enumerated Rights, people would later construe that no other rights exist, which was also not their intentions. Hence Amendments 9 and 10.

I get what you are saying, but the catch is in the vagueness (intentional) of the Constitution. At what point does a regulation or restriction constitute infringement? We have seen this battle rage over the 2nd for some time now. Most rational people acknowledge that regulating firearms sales and requiring certain documents do not infringe an individual's right to bear arms. I extend that same logic to the right to vote. Voter ID is not (in modern society) a huge barrier that infringes a right to vote, while still providing some measure of security to ensure that the person is, in fact, a citizen and has that right.

[leftysergeant]

Must, huh? Surely you can prove that'n.

There is this funny little concept in American law called "equal protection under the law." Learn it and live it.

And you can obviously prove that's the goal of the WI situation. Good luck!

You didn't notice the unethical behavior of the WI GOP this year? My, my.

[Cobalt]

There is this funny little concept in American law called "equal protection under the law." Learn it and live it. Doesn't really help your case, boyo.



You didn't notice the unethical behavior of the WI GOP this year? My, my.
Doesn't even remotely provide evidence that you're correct on this issue. Innocent until proven guilty, or so I hear.

[Ziggurat]

Tell that to the people of Florida who didn't get to vote because some vapid twit didn't cross-referrence their names in any way to be sure that it was them ands not some out of state turd with the same name who was a convicted felon, and then didn't even give them a chance to correct the error.

Wisconsin's voter ID requirements had what exactly to do with that?

Oh, that's right: NOTHING! Wrong place, and time travel doesn't exist. But better luck next time.

[Grizzly Adams]

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
First, you forgot the 26th amendment, that no one shall denied the right to vote on the basis of age, so long as the person is over 18.

Second, all you've done here is show that there are certain things the states can't use as criteria to deny anyone the ability to vote, and the consequences with respect to representation if they deny voting to anyone.

I ask again: where does it say that?

[Mike!]

Nope. Again WRT voting, the Constitution is more about what explicitly can't be done rather that broad rights like freedom of speech or religion. That's why states can make up their own rules on who does and does not get to vote as in my Texas example, as long a it doesn't violate the explicit prohibitions enumerated in the constitution.

We've covered it in detail for 7 pages. The WI law is not about disenfranchisement, and particularly not about a GOP conspiracy to disenfranchise Dems.

When you're a nitwit from a far Northwestern state, everything is.

[Vampire]

And we all know this is what this is about. Dems want illegal aliens to vote, the GOP doesn't.

Speaking of conspiracy theories . . .

[WildCat]

Speaking of conspiracy theories . . .
Who else is prevented from voting with an ID requirement? Any legal voter can get a state ID, illegal immigrants have a much more difficult time.

[johnny karate]

The concern is that voters will be disenfranchised. That this might be an unfounded concern doesn't bring your ridiculous conspiracy theory any closer to being true or makr it any less ridiculous.

[WildCat]

The concern is that voters will be disenfranchised. That this might be an unfounded concern doesn't bring your ridiculous conspiracy theory any closer to being true or makr it any less ridiculous.
I provided evidence that some illegal immigrants are registered to vote, and while small it could affect a close election according to the GAO.

You have provided no evidence that anyone in Wisconsin who is eligible to vote will not vote because they are unable to obtain a state-issued ID.

I think the Dems are more worried about real votes they will lose (from illegal immigrants) rather than the imaginary votes of Dems disenfranchised by this law (imaginary because no one is disenfranchised by this law). I never ascribe a politician's stand on an issue to principle when there are pragmatic reasons for their stand. It's a special type of Occam's Razor for politicians. ;)

And I take it you are no longer even attempting to defend the moonbat conspiracy theory presented by Skeptic Ginger in the OP?

[johnny karate]

I provided evidence that some illegal immigrants are registered to vote, and while small it could affect a close election according to the GAO.

You cited a report that stated illegal immigrant voting might be a problem that could possibly sway close elections, and provided no data to support such a speculation.

Conspicuously absent from this damning evidence was substantiation for your claim that Democrats are in any way involved.

To clarify my point, if I claim Republicans are using bear attacks to maim and murder hikers, and cite as evidence a study indicating bear attacks might be a problem in areas where people hike, I haven't really made my case, have I?

You have provided no evidence that anyone in Wisconsin who is eligible to vote will not vote because they are unable to obtain a state-issued ID.

Probably because I'm not in the habit of defending claims I never made.

I think the Dems are more worried about real votes they will lose (from illegal immigrants) rather than the imaginary votes of Dems disenfranchised by this law (imaginary because no one is disenfranchised by this law).

It's good you prefaced that statement with "I think" so it is clear that the only place such a conspiracy theory exists is in your mind.

I never ascribe a politician's stand on an issue to principle when there are pragmatic reasons for their stand. It's a special type of Occam's Razor for politicians. ;)

So... what is that? Just a fancy way of saying you can read minds?

And I take it you are no longer even attempting to defend the moonbat conspiracy theory presented by Skeptic Ginger in the OP?

I'm not sure how one would be able to continue doing something they never did in the first place.

[WildCat]

You cited a report that stated illegal immigrant voting might be a problem that could possibly sway close elections, and provided no data to support such a speculation.

Conspicuously absent from this damning evidence was substantiation for your claim that Democrats are in any way involved.

To clarify my point, if I claim Republicans are using bear attacks to maim and murder hikers, and cite as evidence a study indicating bear attacks might be a problem in areas where people hike, I haven't really made my case, have I?
Have I ever claimed Democrats were organizing voter registration of illegal imigrants????

Probably because I'm not in the habit of defending claims I never made.
Yet you demand I defend a claim I never made... :rolleyes:

It's good you prefaced that statement with "I think" so it is clear that the only place such a conspiracy theory exists is in your mind.
Then can you cite a single rational reason why the Dems think a voter ID law will cost them votes?

So... what is that? Just a fancy way of saying you can read minds?
No mind reading involved. It's where the evidence leads.

You can easily prove me wrong, just find a reason how this voter ID law will prevent anyone from voting who is eligible to vote.

I'm not sure how one would be able to continue doing something they never did in the first place.
Do you agree the claim made in the OP is a moonbat conspiracy theory?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you agree the claim made in the OP is a moonbat conspiracy theory?

No matter which side of the voter ID issue one is on, I think we can all agree on this.

:crazy:

[leftysergeant]

No matter which side of the voter ID issue one is on, I think we can all agree on this.

:crazy:Only if YOUR SIDE of thee debate can provbe that DMV service in areas with large populations of the poor, disabled and elderly is as good and available after the changes than before, and that the public is properly informed of the procedures.

[Ziggurat]

Only if YOUR SIDE of thee debate can provbe that DMV service in areas with large populations of the poor, disabled and elderly is as good and available after the changes than before, and that the public is properly informed of the procedures.

That's a reasonable standard for demonstrating that no harm was done. But that's obviously not the relevant standard for demonstrating that this was a conspiracy to suppress the Democrat vote. You're making the claim, back it up.

You know, with actual evidence that doesn't involve time travel.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Only if YOUR SIDE of thee debate can provbe that DMV service in areas with large populations of the poor, disabled and elderly is as good and available after the changes than before, and that the public is properly informed of the procedures.

My side? The only "side" I'm on is skepticism. And our side debunked and destroyed the claim in the OP.

[applecorped]

why hasn't this been moved to CT?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

why hasn't this been moved to CT?

Good question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I'm ignoring all the kids in the back seat and the thread is not about rehashing the voter disenfranchisement issue. That has been thoroughly discussed and the evidence establishes the fact that even if it wasn't effective, actions intended to disenfranchise voters include the voter ID laws. No evidence has established there is more than a drop in the bucket that constitutes voter fraud. John Fund has been completely discredited but I guess the Fox News viewers in the forum missed that overwhelming evidence. Bottom line, there is no significant voter fraud and regardless of how effective this particular voter disenfranchisement is or isn't, there is no reason for voter ID laws except disenfranchisement and ignorance, and the people like Fund that fuel the lie have to know it is a lie. If someone wants to start another thread challenging the facts about voter caging or voter disenfranchisement, they should do so. Or maybe the mods will be kind enough to split that discussion off from this thread.


OK, so on to the actual thread topic (if the off topic flood of posts hasn't chased all the interested parties away, that is).

I printed out a map from Google showing all the current locations of the WI DMV offices. I noted the ones that are proposed to be closed and where the new ones or hours would increase. It turns out all the offices with proposed increased hours appear to be new offices. Also from the DMV website, it appears that 3 counties currently have no office. Newly proposed offices include adding one to those 3 counties.

Then I compared the changes to the maps showing the party voting totals for the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. (I have already posted links to the map site, the DMV page and the news article that named DMV office names to close or expand.)

Granted the political party maps are not very detailed. The 3 years are fairly consistent. The majority of the closures are in areas where the party affiliation appears mixed.

The Iron River closure, while in a low population area, takes an office that is equidistant from the next two closest offices and moves the location close to one of the existing offices. The area is Democratic. In effect, it makes the distance to the nearest office many miles further for residents in a large area of the state.

Closing Algoma and opening an office instead in Kewaunee moves the location closer to a Republican area. The same is true for the proposed Montello office which looks to replace 3 nearby offices in mixed areas, Westfield, Salk City and Reedsburg.

The new offices in Buffalo and Menominee are in counties with no current county office and appear to be more Democratic Party areas.

Two offices proposed to close, Oconomowoc and Fort Atkinson are in majority Republican areas. There are more offices in this area in general because it is the more heavily populated area surrounding Milwaukee.


On this basis alone, it can't really be said there is a smoking gun here. It does appear the Rep who complained, Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, is in a district where the office has been proposed to be closed. What's odd is the voter maps make it look like his district is more heavily Republican. It suggests the method I've used leaves a lot to be desired. Another possible explanation is a closure in a Republican area would serve to strengthen the Republican vote if one were to decease the number of low income voters in a district with an expected close race.

Since it doesn't look like any of the closures will occur before the recall elections scheduled in the next 2 weeks, it didn't seem worth looking there: ... Also, if one or more of these candidates fail to file statements of economic interest by Friday, the July 19th date will become a general election against the incumbent(s) in the affected districts, Democrats Jim Holperin in the 12th, Robert Wirch in the 22nd and Dave Hansen in the 30th, all with no third-party/independent candidates on the ballot.

August 9 - Recall general elections in the Senate districts currently held by Republicans – Robert Cowles in the 2nd, Alberta Darling in the 8th, Shelia Harsdorf in the 10th, Luther Olsen in the 14th, Randy Hopper in the 18th and Dan Kapanke in the 32nd. There are no third-party/independent candidates on the ballot.

August 16 - Recall general elections in the Senate districts currently held by the Democrats.I don't see Jorgensen's name on the list.


If I get time later, I may try to hunt down the races that were close calls and see if the closures might have an exceptional impact on those races.

[JohnnyG]

OK, I'm ignoring all the kids in the back seat and the thread is not about rehashing the voter disenfranchisement issue. That has been thoroughly discussed and the evidence establishes the fact that even if it wasn't effective, actions intended to disenfranchise voters include the voter ID laws. No evidence has established there is more than a drop in the bucket that constitutes voter fraud. John Fund has been completely discredited but I guess the Fox News viewers in the forum missed that overwhelming evidence. Bottom line, there is no significant voter fraud and regardless of how effective this particular voter disenfranchisement is or isn't, there is no reason for voter ID laws except disenfranchisement and ignorance, and the people like Fund that fuel the lie have to know it is a lie. If someone wants to start another thread challenging the facts about voter caging or voter disenfranchisement, they should do so. Or maybe the mods will be kind enough to split that discussion off from this thread.

Wow. Declare yourself right and others wrong then claim the discussion over because it's off topic. Could you be any more condescending? :rolleyes:

On this basis alone, it can't really be said there is a smoking gun here. It does appear the Rep who complained, Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, is in a district where the office has been proposed to be closed. What's odd is the voter maps make it look like his district is more heavily Republican. It suggests the method I've used leaves a lot to be desired. Another possible explanation is a closure in a Republican area would serve to strengthen the Republican vote if one were to decease the number of low income voters in a district with an expected close race.

Or maybe the offices are simply being closed for budget reasons and they chose ones with light traffic and other offices nearby to serve the affected communities? Naw, that can't be it...after all, the Repubs are in charge. :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Adams]

If I get time later, I may try to hunt down the races that were close calls and see if the closures might have an exceptional impact on those races.
You don't have to. Because a link you quoted already put this to bed.

By January 2012 every county will have at least one DMV office open for at least 20 hours per week, which for more than half the counties in Wisconsin is more than they get now.

What more do you want?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow. Declare yourself right and others wrong then claim the discussion over because it's off topic. Could you be any more condescending? :rolleyes:That is not what I did, but go ahead, make stuff up if it floats your boat.

I declared the stuff you are talking about was already thoroughly discussed in other threads and was not the topic of this thread.


Or maybe the offices are simply being closed for budget reasons and they chose ones with light traffic and other offices nearby to serve the affected communities? Naw, that can't be it...after all, the Repubs are in charge. :rolleyes:So did my post fail to confirm your bias about me so you ignored it when I said, "it can't really be said there is a smoking gun here"?

[Howie Felterbush]

So did my post fail to confirm your bias about me so you ignored it when I said, "it can't really be said there is a smoking gun here"?

Hell, I'll prop you up for admitting that. In public, even.

Now, hand those Cheetos back here, I'm hungry.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't have to. Because a link you quoted already put this to bed.

By January 2012 every county will have at least one DMV office open for at least 20 hours per week, which for more than half the counties in Wisconsin is more than they get now.

What more do you want?According to the DMV site it only appears that 3 counties (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/about/locate/dmv/scmap.htm) refer the customer to look in additional counties for office locations.


The reason I suggested it was because the Representative from Fort Atkinson made the charge, the DMV in his district was one of the offices closing. I'm just trying to investigate his claim since that was the basis of the original charge.

Contrary to the usual attacks in this politics forum against me from the other side of the isle, I am actually interested in the facts and don't assume if I find the story credible it necessarily is or isn't.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hell, I'll prop you up for admitting that. In public, even.

Now, hand those Cheetos back here, I'm hungry.Eeeew, I don't eat those things. And I certainly wouldn't ever feed them to the children, even brats in the back seat. Gawd knows what the orange stuff actually is. ;)

[Howie Felterbush]

Eeeew, I don't eat those things. And I certainly wouldn't ever feed them to the children, even brats in the back seat. Gawd knows what the orange stuff actually is. ;)


Concentrated deliciousness.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Contrary to the usual attacks in this politics forum against me....

:v:

Translation: I posted a nonsense claim, and skeptics rudely tore it apart.

[Reginald Hobbes]

Since it doesn't look like any of the closures will occur before the recall elections scheduled in the next 2 weeks, it didn't seem worth looking there: I don't see Jorgensen's name on the list.


If I get time later, I may try to hunt down the races that were close calls and see if the closures might have an exceptional impact on those races.

You don't have to. Because a link you quoted already put this to bed.

By January 2012 every county will have at least one DMV office open for at least 20 hours per week, which for more than half the counties in Wisconsin is more than they get now.

What more do you want?
ID will not be needed to vote in the recall elections.
Since ID will not be required until the spring 2012 election, the expanded DMV service will be up and running by then.

[JohnnyG]

So did my post fail to confirm your bias about me so you ignored it when I said, "it can't really be said there is a smoking gun here"?

It's not an admission that your CT was wrong, only that you could't prove it. So no, it's actually consistent with the blind partisanship that is clearly evident in most of your posts.

[Neally]

Contrary to the usual attacks in this politics forum against me from the other side of the isle, I am actually interested in the facts and don't assume if I find the story credible it necessarily is or isn't.Then perhaps you'd like to support your previous claim that the GOP engages in disenfranchisement many more times greater than Dems.

[Mike!]

Concentrated deliciousness.

Sprinkled liberally over a Styrofoam packing peanut...

[leftysergeant]

Then perhaps you'd like to support your previous claim that the GOP engages in disenfranchisement many more times greater than Dems.The more people vote, the better it is for Democrats, almost universally. It would be stuipid for us the narrow the voter base.

Nearly all the congressional turnovers from D to R in my life time have occurred during LOW turn-out elections.

The Democrtats of today are far removed from the rednecks who tried to keep blacks from voting back in the 1960s. Those fools vote Republicon today.

[leftysergeant]

ID will not be needed to vote in the recall elections.
Since ID will not be required until the spring 2012 election, the expanded DMV service will be up and running by then.But it will reduce the number of people who have proper ID before then, possibly enough to cover Il Duce's sorry butt from the recall he knows is coming when he hits the mandatory minimum time served to allow recall.

Look at the latest recall results, in which the Republicons tried to recall a Democrat.

Il Duce is toast if there is even a half-hearted turnout.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

ID will not be needed to vote in the recall elections.
Since ID will not be required until the spring 2012 election, the expanded DMV service will be up and running by then.

Please stop cluttering up this conspiracy thread with your facts.

Thank you.

[Reginald Hobbes]

The Democrtats
:confused:That's a new one. Does it have something to do with body ink?

But it will reduce the number of people who have proper ID before then, possibly enough to cover Il Duce's sorry butt from the recall he knows is coming when he hits the mandatory minimum time served to allow recall.
How will it reduce the number of people who already have proper ID?
Does Walker have bands of jack-booted brownshirts* roaming the state, beating Democrats and taking their driver's licenses?

Look at the latest recall results, in which the Republicons tried to recall a Democrat.

Il Duce is toast if there is even a half-hearted turnout.
They should have had a good chance to take that seat back, but the party and the campaign people screwed up and didn't get the right guy on the ballot. All that was left was a whacktard (to use one of your terms) who had no chance. Do not base your opinions entirely on what you've seen and read since February. What happened in Madison cannot be simply extrapolated to the rest of the state.

*since Lefty is back in the thread I decided to fire off a pre-emptive Godwin

[Reginald Hobbes]

Please stop cluttering up this conspiracy thread with your facts.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, :( I won't do it again.

[leftysergeant]

How will it reduce the number of people who already have proper ID?
Does Walker have bands of jack-booted brownshirts* roaming the state, beating Democrats and taking their driver's licenses?

No. Just useless drongos who can't explain what the citizen has to do to get ID working DNV service desks. If they have a DL already, they're covered. Pay attention.


They should have had a good chance to take that seat back, but the party and the campaign people screwed up and didn't get the right guy on the ballot. All that was left was a whacktard (to use one of your terms) who had no chance. Do not base your opinions entirely on what you've seen and read since February. What happened in Madison cannot be simply extrapolated to the rest of the state.

What are you banging on about? The most recent election since Il Duce and that worthless piece of poo on the Supreme Court were elected was a flaming disaster for the Republicons because people are already bloody tired of their BS. I doubt that any of the right-whacking conservitards could beat Peewee Herman right now.

[Frank Newgent]

Do not base your opinions entirely on what you've seen and read since February. What happened in Madison cannot be simply extrapolated to the rest of the state.


I remember Waukesha County where I grew up (North Lake) as being almost entirely rural and certainly no Republican bastion as it seems today. Go figure.

And what happened in Madison can certainly be extrapolated to Richland Center. The post office there even has a beautiful surviving workers-of-the-world type mural from the nineteen-thirties on the wall :D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/auvet/5908662034/

[Reginald Hobbes]

Pay attention.

:rolleyes:

....because people are already bloody tired of their BS.

There are plenty of us here who are tired of the Democrats' BS as well.

[Neally]

The more people vote, the better it is for Democrats, almost universally. It would be stuipid for us the narrow the voter base.
Voter fraud includes registering people that aren't allow to vote, but regardless, the numbers should be overwhelming if you were to provide a study which objectively looks at all the incidents of voter fraud/disenfranchisement of the GOP vs Dems. Clearly you nor Skeptic Ginger has such evidence.

[Grizzly Adams]

According to the DMV site it only appears that 3 counties (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/about/locate/dmv/scmap.htm) refer the customer to look in additional counties for office locations.
So what?

First, if you're too stupid to look for another DMV office when you discover your usual one is closing down, you shouldn't be able to sustain vital functions, let alone vote for president.

Second, as has already been stated on more than one occassion, the ID requirement will not be in force until the 2012 election, and every county will have at least one DMV office open for at least twenty hours per week.

I ask again: what more do you want?????????

[johnny karate]

Have I ever claimed Democrats were organizing voter registration of illegal imigrants????

Maybe not, but you have certainly claimed that Democrats secretly want illegal immigrants to vote, and that opposition to this law is merely part of their plan to keep illegals voting, the implication being that Democrats can only win elections through nefarious means.

Then can you cite a single rational reason why the Dems think a voter ID law will cost them votes?

Democrats have expressed a concern that voter ID laws are restrictive and can lead to the disenfranchisement of certain voters.

Just because this concern might be unfounded, doesn't automatically render true whatever goofball alternative theory you can concoct.

No mind reading involved. It's where the evidence leads.

There is no evidence that Democrats want and encourage illegal immigrants to vote. None. So I'm not sure what "evidence" leads you to that conclusion.

You can easily prove me wrong, just find a reason how this voter ID law will prevent anyone from voting who is eligible to vote.

Actually, how it works is that you prove yourself correct by providing evidence of your claim.

Do you agree the claim made in the OP is a moonbat conspiracy theory?

I agree it's a conspiracy theory on par with yours.

[WildCat]

Maybe not, but you have certainly claimed that Democrats secretly want illegal immigrants to vote, and that opposition to this law is merely part of their plan to keep illegals voting, the implication being that Democrats can only win elections through nefarious means.
That's not at all implied.

Democrats have expressed a concern that voter ID laws are restrictive and can lead to the disenfranchisement of certain voters.
Yes, such as illegal immigrants. The voter ID law affects no one else.

Just because this concern might be unfounded, doesn't automatically render true whatever goofball alternative theory you can concoct.
Occam's Razor says they're more concerned about losing real votes than imaginary ones.

There is no evidence that Democrats want and encourage illegal immigrants to vote. None. So I'm not sure what "evidence" leads you to that conclusion.
Except for their opposition to voter ID laws, which affects no one but illegal immigrants.

Actually, how it works is that you prove yourself correct by providing evidence of your claim.
I provided evidence that illegal immigrants are registered to vote, and that Dems oppose voter ID laws.

I agree it's a conspiracy theory on par with yours.
Not even close.

[thaiboxerken]

Also SG, could you please post EVIDENCE that Gov. Walker is intentionally blocking voters as your thread title states? How about some evidence that Gov. Walker is influencing what DMV offices/sites close? I don't like Gov. Walker but what I dislike even more is when someone makes accusations without proof...AKA McCarthyism.

I agree, Walker is dumb enough to be suppressing votes by accident.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then perhaps you'd like to support your previous claim that the GOP engages in disenfranchisement many more times greater than Dems.Since the thread hijack doesn't seem to be going away, and since the thread topic doesn't have much more to be discussed, I will indulge you. However, I've already spent more than enough time on this subject and I don't intend to repeat the experience yet again. These two extensive reports on the subject are sufficient, if you care to actually investigate the facts. But if as I suspect, all you care about is confirming your bias, then there's no point in discussing it anyway.

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio - Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (http://www.iwantmyvote.com/lib/downloads/references/house_judiciary/final_status_report.pdf)

Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters Washington DC office - by Teresa James, J.D. (http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Voter%20Caging/Caging_Democracy_Report.pdf)

Project Vote page introducing the above report. (http://www.projectvote.org/voter-caging.html)After an initial voter caging operation in Arizona in 1958, a nationwide voter caging campaign dubbed “Operation Eagle Eye” was conducted in 1964 by the RNC and state Republican parties in major metropolitan areas nationwide. Voter caging and other voter challenge operations continued in isolated states during the 1980s and early 1990 and re-emerged on the political scene as nationwide campaign strategy in 2004. In 2004, political operatives targeted more than half a million voters in voter caging campaigns in nine states. At least 77,000 voters had their eligibility challenged between 2004 and 2006.


The GOP’s Voter ID gambit (http://www.projectvote.org/in-the-news/642-the-gops-voter-id-gambit.html) (IE, it's a current GOP strategy.)

Valparaiso University Law Review: Disenfranchise This: State Voter ID Laws and Their Discontents, a Blueprint for Bringing Successful Equal Protection and Poll Tax Claims (http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=vulr&sei-redir=1#search=%22voter%20id%20laws%20disenfranchi se%22)[Introduction] Using the extra-stringent voter ID statutes of Indiana, Georgia, and Missouri as case studies, Part II of this Note will provide a factual background, discussing the legislative history, concerns of disenfranchisement, and subsequent judicial treatment of each law.9
...
V. CONCLUSION
Given the high number of voters potentially disenfranchised by extra-stringent voter ID laws and the disproportionate impact that such laws may have on particularly vulnerable classes of voters, it is imperative that such laws do not take effect as proposed. Because the right to vote is often the only way for the socially and economically vulnerable in society to preserve their rights, the loss of the right is particularly detrimental. Thus, regardless of the illicit political motivations for and against enacting state voter ID laws, it is crucial that future legal challenges prove successful. Ideally, this Note will serve as a useful tool for litigators presently bringing claims against state voter ID laws and will lay the foundation for a more comprehensive legal analysis in the future.

Exploring the factual background and subsequent judicial treatment of three similarly enacted voter ID statutes, this Note deduces factors which contribute to successful claims against these laws. Building on conclusions from this analysis, this Note constructs a blueprint for bringing successful Equal Protection and poll tax claims against similarly enacted laws in the future. Given the prevalent enactment of state voter ID laws and the gravity of potential harm imposed by them, effective utilization of the factors set forth in this Note may prove influential in preserving the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans in the future.

[thaiboxerken]

DNC does it too, therefore it's okay for the GOP to do it..

[Minoosh]

Since the thread hijack doesn't seem to be going away, and since the thread topic doesn't have much more to be discussed, I will indulge you.

Thank you for getting into the guts of the data, superimposing maps, etc., it's so much more work than just being snarky.

[Ziggurat]

The GOP’s Voter ID gambit (http://www.projectvote.org/in-the-news/642-the-gops-voter-id-gambit.html) (IE, it's a current GOP strategy.)

That's not in dispute. The question is what the strategy is intended to achieve. And that article doesn't indicate that it's intended to disenfranchise any voters. It notes that this is an accusation by critics, but that's essentially using the accusation itself as evidence that the accusation is true. And that's not... skeptical, is it, Skeptic Ginger?

From that link:
Opponents say the bill disenfranchises poor and minority voters — a charge that GOP supporters dispute.

If that is the case, the effect is so small that it’s hard to measure. A study by Minnite and Columbia University’s Bob Erickson from 2009 shows that any change is nearly impossible to detect using currently available data.

So why are they fighting a battle over something that nobody can demonstrate makes any difference to elections? Especially when, according to YOUR source, massive majorities favor voter ID laws. It seems particularly foolish electoral strategy to oppose a widely popular position for the purpose of defending so few votes that nobody notices them. They're likely to lose more votes through opposition than they can gain.

Valparaiso University Law Review: Disenfranchise This: State Voter ID Laws and Their Discontents, a Blueprint for Bringing Successful Equal Protection and Poll Tax Claims (http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=vulr&sei-redir=1#search=%22voter%20id%20laws%20disenfranchi se%22)

Nothing in this source makes ANY claim that the purpose of these laws is disenfranchisement. It argues that this can be an effect (though given that it's now several years old, one would think that new data would emerge to demonstrate this if it was significant), but it (quite rightly) stays away from the conspiracy accusations that you have backed.

[Neally]

These two extensive reports on the subject are sufficient, if you care to actually investigate the facts. But if as I suspect, all you care about is confirming your bias, then there's no point in discussing it anyway.
Fail, fail, fail. The challenge was to provide evidence to your claim that the GOP engages in disenfranchisement/registration fraud at a rate many times greater than the Dems. That would require an objective and comprehensive survey an analysis of all such incidents. What you've provided is a report on one election in a single state and report only only on alleged GOP caging incidents. In summary, you given cherry picked evidence only against the GOP, just like your previous posts.

DNC does it too, therefore it's okay for the GOP to do it..Straw. No one made that claim.