Do something about photo IDs

[dragonlady]

Call your legislators and tell them you don't like the photo ID bill. If they're Republicans, they don't care about disenfranchising voters (that's the purpose of the bill), so emphasize the increased costs to the taxpayers. Making everybody get a state ID will overburden the DMV offices. (Did you know that in some counties they are open only one day per MONTH? How does that work out for everyone?) They'll have to add staff and hours, or else everybody who goes there (driver's license renewals, registrations, etc.) will suffer in much longer lines. And when they can't charge $28 for state IDs anymore (because it would be a poll tax) that will be a drain on the state finances. We don't need an expansion of the state bureaucracy frittering away our tax dollars. And if they do away with same-day registration, we won't be exempt from the federal motor-voter law anymore and the DMVs and social welfare offices and other state offices will have to start registering voters (more bureaucracy and waste of taxpayer dollars).

Another point: Granny hasn't driven for years so she doesn't have a valid driver's license any more. If she can find a someone to take her to the DMV and wait with her, she can get a state ID, but she'll need a birth certificate. (She can't find her birth certificate, hasn't seen it for a long time.) If she wants to get another one from the state where she was born, she'll have to send money and a copy of a photo ID ... but she'll need a birth certificate to get a state ID. Granny is looking forward to voting for Sarah Palin in the Republican primary next year, but will she ever vote again, unless she goes into a nursing home (there's an exception for that)?

Any Wisconsin resident who does not hold a valid photo license from Wisconsin or another jurisdiction may request a photo ID. There is no age limit to apply for an ID card. When applying, it will be necessary to provide:
1. Proof of name and date of birth, for example, a certified U.S. birth certificate, valid passport or certificate of naturalization.
2. Proof of identity (usually a document with a signature or photo).
3. Proof of Wisconsin residency.
4. Proof of U.S. citizenship, legal permanent resident status, legal conditional resident status or legal temporary visitor status.
5. Your social security number.

[sybylla]

1. Thank you for posting this.

This is an extremely important issue. This bill requires the photo ID you present to have your current address on it to vote. Now, your license is good for 14 years and you don't have to get a new one just because you change address. That will all change in this bill. This will hit college students, the homeless, the poor and senior citizens the hardest - all populations liable to move frequently/have short stays in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, etc., and little extra cash to lay out for an ID. And that's provided you don't have to pay for a copy of your birth certificate before you can get an appropriate ID.

Imagine the rush at the DMV the month before every election and primary day as students who just moved from one apartment to another have to go fork over another $28 dollars for a new license. Or, they have to vote absentee at their parents address and keep their parents address as their primary. For some college students, this could cost them $28 - $112 per year just to exercise their voting rights.

[dragonlady]

2. They can't charge for ID

That would amount to a poll tax, contrary to the Constitution. The analysis of the bill says that a state ID will be free if you specifically ask for it to be without charge. But the other costs--birth certificate, getting to DMV-- would really add up. In time as well as money. As far as changing addresses, there appears to be something about stating your current address when you vote and showing proof of the new address, but I didn't have time to wade through all the verbiage. Here's a link to the text of the bill for whoever has the stomach for it:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/SB-6.pdf .

[ewagner]

4. I would argue

That ANY EXPENSE associated with getting an ID is a de-facto poll tax and unlawful under the 1965 Civil Rights act...but then again...who the hell is going to listen to me?

Maybe a judge....

[yourout]

5. Including having to drive or taxi to get one.

[dragonlady]

6. That would be a fine argument in court

The actual fee would obviously be a poll tax. But a good constitutional lawyer would bring up the other expenses a person would be required to put out in order to exercise the right to vote. (I leave aside Justice Scalia's notion that there is no right to vote in the Constitution as beneath contempt.) Another way to attack this would be as a violation of the Voting Rights Act because it falls disproportionately on protected minorities. For example, a UWM study found that at least 50% of black and Hispanic residents of Wisconsin don't have a driver's license, versus about 17% for whites. (Some lose it for getting too many parking tickets, for example. But driving offenses below the level of felony are not a reason to lose the right to vote under Wisconsin law. And some day even felons may be able to vote--they can in a few states now.)

I hope somebody will challenge this in court if it passes. One slightly comforting thought is that the bill as written (unless they amend it) would not take effect in time for the April election coming up. Having to implement it in such a short time would be a disaster.

[ewagner]

7. I like that

the argument under the Voting Rights Act is excellent. If the statistics can be insulated from an assault by the defense attornies, then it is a winning argument. If the case could go to a jury the argument would win handily..it would be the appeals courts where the real down-and-dirty arguing before a mixture of conservative and progressive judges would take place.

I like your thinking :toast: :toast:

[sybylla]

8. That's not how the legies I talk to believe it would be implemented

And they do believe it won't past the poll tax question if it is passed. Which is why they are not asking for it to be modified but simply defeated. Right now, Indiana has the most draconian voter ID bill and it has passed the courts. If we argue for change rather than defeat, we'll end up with their bullshit bill. Which will still disenfranchise poor and transient voters.

Defeat ID - that's the call.

[dragonlady]

10. Absolutely it should be defeated

It does seem they have the votes to pass it, though, and they have been wanting to do this for a long time. As I see it, the only way to convince Republicans not to vote for it is if they see constituents upset about wasting taxpayers' money. Plus disenfranchising senior citizens, a large part of their base. If it passes anyway (because it's just so politically delicious for them), it's time to fight it in the courts.

As I understand this bill, its effect would be more severe than in Indiana. I can't find it right now, but I have read that Indiana has a great many more places to get a photo ID than Wisconsin now has in place. That could be a factor. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't find that the cost of a birth certificate would make the Indiana law unconstitutional. The law on this is ugly right now. (Elections have consequences for the way the Supreme Court interprets the law, so we'd better hope a good Democrat stays in the White House until the current Court changes.)

[ewagner]

11. Pessimistic

I don't think there's the chance of a snowball in hell that the Repubs will fail to pass this bill. I think we need to gear up for a court fight....and I think they're wrong if they believe they can beat the poll tax argument.

The goal of the court battle would be to nullify their gross stupidity...declare the law unconstitutional.

[dragonlady]

3. Tell the GAB what you think about mandatory photo ID

Here's the link to the comment site for the Government Accountability Board, the agency that administers election law. I don't see how it could hurt to register negative comments:
http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id/comments

[ewagner]

9. Done

Used both arguments stated above.