Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Elections Matter — for Future Elections! UPDATED

Tags:

The ruling by the anti-voter judicial activists on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling which implemented newly developed and completely untested voter id rules for Wisconsin’s general election on November 4, 2014, will not be reviewed by the full panel.

ACLU Comment on Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Wisconsin Voter ID

CHICAGO – The full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today declined to rehear a three-judge panel’s order reinstating Wisconsin’s voter ID law prior to the midterm election. The vote was split evenly, 5-5, meaning the panel’s order stands. Neither the panel nor the full court has yet ruled on the actual merits of the law, which was found unconstitutional by a federal judge in April. The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the law, and petitioned for a full appeals court review following the panel’s order on September 12 allowing the law to take effect. The ACLU presented oral arguments to the panel that day asking the court to uphold the April decision striking down the law as unconstitutional and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The following is a statement from Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project:

“Allowing this law to take effect so close to the midterm election is a recipe for chaos, voter confusion, and disenfranchisement. The court could have avoided this pandemonium and given Wisconsin voters a chance to cast their ballots free of obstruction. It failed to do so, and we are evaluating our next step.”

Ten judges … because there is an unfilled vacancy*. Three judges appointed by Democratic presidents plus two appointed by Republicans but whose ideological blinders are not epoxied on,  voted to hear the challenge. Five judges chosen for their ideology, paying back their Republican Party masters by disenfranchising those who can’t afford the de facto poll tax, refused. Poll tax? Isn’t that a bit of hyperbole, you ask? No, it is not. Voter ids can only be obtained 8:30 to 4:30, Monday through Friday at designated Department of Motor Vehicle locations and I defy anyone who suggests that getting off work (or getting child care if you are not working) and taking public transportation to the DMV and standing in line for 4 hours is without cost. Judge Adelman saw it for what it was: a way to disenfranchise the poor and the disabled.

Given the ideological split on this court, as seen by the votes on the refusal, the likelihood of prevailing was pretty slim anyway. But is serves to underscore just how important the choice of people to serve lifetime appointments on the federal bench are.

Elections have consequences. We have 7 vacancies at the appellate court level and 50 at the district court level. There is no chance that all of those vacancies can be filled before December 31, 2014 so it is essential that Democrats maintain their majority in the U.S. Senate.

When we vote, we win. And when Democrats win, the chances of fair and honest future elections becomes better.

Oh and by the way, the ACLU matters, too. Donate now: Because freedom can’t protect itself.

~

*UPDATE: I discovered what happened to the missing 11th judge at the 7th Circuit: she was sacrificed on the altar of “Senate comity”:

In 2010, President Obama nominated a University of Wisconsin law professor named Victoria Nourse to this vacancy – Nourse was one of four potential nominees suggested to the White House by a nominating commission sponsored by the state’s two senators.

In 2011, newly elected teaparty Republican Senator Ron Johnson (WI), objected to Professor Nourse and declined to return a “blue slip” to Senate Judiciary Chairman, Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

What is this “blue slip” and why would it trump a nonpartisan commission’s recommendations and a presidential nomination based on that recommendation?

For much of the Twentieth Century, [the “blue slip” process] was merely a mechanism home state senators could use to voice their opposition to a nominee, but nominees who were opposed by their home state senator would typically still receive a vote from the full Senate. Leahy, however, is one of only two Senate Judiciary Chairs in American history who has given each home state senator an absolute veto over anyone nominated to a judgeship in their state. Under Leahy’s rule – a rule that Leahy could unilaterally change at any time if he chose to – Johnson’s decision not to return a blue slip on Nourse held up her nomination indefinitely.

In 2012, Professor Nourse requested to have her nomination withdrawn and the seat has been vacant for the last 4 years, denying a fair hearing to cases in Wisconsin and the other states that the 7th Circuit serves.

For Senator Leahy, “Senate comity” trumps “presidential elections have consequences” and, unlike Harry Reid, Leahy has not learned that when you treat Republicans as if they are honorable instead of seditious hacks bent on destroying our democracy, it is justice that loses in the long run. “Thanks”, Senator Leahy. You made it easier for yourself to enjoy Senate cocktail parties while you made it more difficult for people to vote in Wisconsin. Excellent tradeoff!


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 15 Comments

15 comments

  2. DeniseVelez

    I log-in every morning to look at Sam Wang’s site at Princeton

    http://election.princeton.edu/

    He says:

    As usual, recall that The Power Of Your Vote is a list of states where individual votes are most valuable. Those states are where get-out-the-vote activism and campaign contributions will have the greatest impact.

    Here’s where Repubs are ahead in polling:

    State Margin        Power

    AK Sullivan +5.0% 100.0

    AR Cotton +1.5% 48.2

    IA Ernst +3.0% 41.1

    LA Cassidy +3.0% 29.6

    CO Gardner +4.5% 15.3

    GA Perdue +3.0% 13.5

    SD Rounds +11.0% 13.1

    KY McConnell +6.0% 11.7

    MT Daines +19.0% 7.7

    WV Capito +17.0% 1.2

    MS Cochran +15.0% 0.9

    I’m clear that Moral Mondays has made a big difference in NC

    where Kay Hagan is ahead

    NC Hagan +3.5% 1.4

  3. JanF

    Republicans are planning how they will change the Senate rules “when” they take the majority.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who stands to gain a plum chairmanship in the majority, said Republicans should determine how many liberal presidential confirmations Democrats gained by changing the rules and push through an equal number of conservative nominees whenever the GOP again controls both Congress and the White House.

    “We ought to be able to offset all of those with some very constitutional appointees and get the ones that Democrats wouldn’t like and go ahead and ram them through the same way. Simple majority,” he said. […]

    “It obviously gives us additional leverage to determine who the nominees are going to be and negotiate on the front end,” said Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

    Democrats doubt that Republicans would allow anyone other than the least controversial nominees to get through. They’ve heard the Republicans’ rhetoric over the past year and are warning voters of impending retribution against the president.

    “They clearly have no interest in letting Obama populate his administration. If you think that’s bad today, it will be even worse if they have control,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

    Cornyn said that when he hears this Democratic allegation, “the little boy who cries wolf comes to mind.”

    Excuse me? Did Cornyn forget to listen to the words he just uttered? It is not a case of the “little boy who cries wolf”, it is the realization that the wolf guarding the hen house is looking to have himself a big meal.  

  4. JanF

    Voters lose in the Roberts Court … again.

    SCOTUSblog: Early voting in Ohio blocked

    With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning tomorrow to cast their ballots in this year’s general election.  By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge’s order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted.

    The order will remain in effect until the Court acts on an appeal by state officials.  If that is denied, then the order lapses.  It is unclear when that scenario will unfold.  The state’s petition has not yet been filed formally.

    The practical effect of the order will mean at least early voting will not be allowed this week – a period that supporters of early balloting have called “Golden Week.” That permits voters to register and cast their ballots on the same day.

  5. Diana in NoVa

    Gods, it just never stops, does it? The Rethugs never, ever let up in their efforts to disenfranchise voters.

    There must be a way. There must, must be a way. If only there were sufficient volunteers with cars and babysitters to whisk voters off to the DMV to get their IDs…

    We can only hope that efforts are being made.

    I do belong to the ACLU, donating a set small amount every month. I joined in honor of Molly Ivins, who died some years ago.

  6. JanF

    Judge Slams Voter Suppression Law – ‘Why Does The State Of North Carolina Not Want People To Vote?’

    One provision that received a great deal of attention from the judges during Thursday’s oral arguments in this case is a change to the state law that causes ballots to be tossed out if a voter shows up in the wrong precinct. For the last decade, voters who showed up at the wrong precinct would still have their votes counted in races that were not specific to that precinct, so long as they voted in the correct county. The new law prohibits these ballots from being counted at all. According to the Associated Press, that means thousands of ballots will be thrown out each election year.

    Judge Wynn, the only member of the panel who lives in North Carolina, appeared baffled by this provision. Explaining that he lives very close to a precinct that is not his assigned polling place, he asked the state to justify why his vote should be thrown out if he did not travel to a precinct that is further away from his home. At one point, his questions grew quite pointed – “Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?” Wynn asked. At another point, he described a hypothetical grandmother who has always voted at the same place. Why not “let her just vote in that precinct?” he wondered?

    Legal experts opine that the court will decide to keep the North Carolina law in effect because it goes against Purcell a ruling that suggests that changes to election laws too close to the election can cause chaos and should not be allowed. Then why did the 7th Circuit opt to do just that? Maybe the Supreme Court could shed some light on that:

    In a 2006 case called Purcell v. Gonzalez, the justices reinstated a voter ID law that had been halted by a lower court. They explained that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” […]

    Should both cases come before the justices, that means that they will be confronted with one case where a court changed a state’s election law in a way that Democrats generally approve of, and another case where a court changed the state’s election law in a way that Republicans generally approve of.

    It will be interesting to see if their ruling in Purcell is only a precedent when it makes it more difficult to vote and not a precedent when it would expand the franchise.  

Comments are closed.