Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Wisconsin's Voter ID Law on Hold

|

The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections.

In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal.

Both Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.

Advertisement

NEXT: Friday Funnies: School Lunch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.”

    Not “Such incidents don’t happen”. Simply “extremely rare”.

    Good enuf’ fer’ Gubment work…

    CB

    1. +1 Daly Machine

    2. Not to worry. With a hundred-million voters, “extremely rare” means there’s only a few thousand illegal or invalid votes. That could never affect an election, except for these:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..on_results

      1. There’s only one election in this country with that many voters, and it isn’t a straight popular vote.

        1. I mean, I have no real attachment one way or the other to voter ID laws, but to extrapolate the turnout of the popular vote for president to every single local election is a stretch.

  2. +1 DALEY Machine

  3. Extremely rare is now the benchmark the Court uses? Use of true assault rifles in the commission of a crime is extremely rare too but you see how many laws they are the basis for.

    1. *Extremely rare is now the benchmark the Court uses? *

      Utterly moronic logic at work here. Is the damn law Constitutional? That’s the only determining factor.

      1. A bigger issue is that such examples are extremely rare, because it’s nearly impossible to catch them now, because many places don’t require a voter id. It’s a catch 22.

  4. Good thing the Sup court realizes that voter ID is just code for racist voter supression, i.e. preventing poor, especially poor black, people from voting. oh yeah its not racist at all to ask for an id, just that black people can’t afford them right? but it prob will backfire bc old people are poor too and have a hard time getting to the dmv and so all the teabaggers and rethuglicans will probably be crying and demanding these laws be repealed down the line. LOL how does it feel to be surpressed?

    1. oh yeah its not racist at all to ask for an id, just that black people can’t afford them right?

      States that require voter ID send out little, laminated cards to all registered voters to be used as identification if one has no other form of it. Your premise is flawed. That is all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.