Wells Hall Off Topic Board

actually until this year it was a piece of mail proving residency - the following are acceptable:

Proof of Residence

The following constitute acceptable Proof-of-Residence if the document contains your current name and address and is valid on Election Day (unless otherwise indicated):

A current and valid Wisconsin driver license.
A current and valid Wisconsin identification card.
Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit.
Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
A residential lease which is effective for a period that includes election day (NOT for first-time voters registering by mail).
A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo), ONLY if the bearer provides a fee receipt dated within the last nine months or the institution provides a certified housing list to the municipal clerk.
A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing not earlier than 90 days before election day.
Bank statement.
Paycheck.
A check or other document issued by a unit of government.

thanks for playing, fantasy and fiction boy.

Only for 1st time voters. Why does Wiconsin restrict the voting rights of non 1st time voters?????? Damn racists

why does it have to be a "widespread" problem?

There are so many dead people ( over 50K last I heard ) on the Florida rolls that politicans have started campaigning in cemetaries

I really hope you aren't being serious with that question. Also you're implying that the ratio of legal to illegal voters in states like Florida and Pennsylvania is 1 to 1. I'm willing to guess the number is closer to 1000 or 10000 to 1. That doesn't make it right but you actually have no problem "accidentally" stripping someone of their fundamental Constitutional rights. That is sickening to me and should offend anyone who cares about the Constitution.

on no it makes you sick....poor guy, are you gonna vomit? Maybe you shouldn't be on these message boards if you can't stomach the truth.

It's simple, try to follow. You cast a vote for candidate A. An illegal vote is cast for candidate B. The net effect of that is no vote. Why would you want your vote suppressed like this? It most certainly is a 1 to 1 ratio for illegal vote to legal vote. The fact that you cite the Consitution shows you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. There's not a scholar in the US who doesn't recognize that the Constitution leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states as upheld by the Supreme Court recently in Bush V Gore. Educate yourself and maybe you won't get sick next time

no picture ID needed for repeat voters either.

Actually if you had bothered to click on the link and read what I pasted you'd see this was for anyone to vote - first time, fifth time, fiftieth time. I voted in WI elections from 1994 to 2002. Like everything else in this world, I know more about this than you. Keep up the fail, fantasy and fiction boy.

"On March 6, 2012, Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan ordered the Government Accountability Board and Governor Walker to “cease immediately any effort to enforce or implement the photo identification requirements of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23, pending trial of this case and further order of the court.”

On March 12, 2012, Dane County Circuit Judge Judge Richard Niess declared "2011 Wisconsin Act 23’s photo ID requirements unconstitutional to the extent they serve as a condition for voting at the polls." The judge also permanently enjoined the defendants "from any further implementation or enforcement of those provisions."

Act 23 contains several other non-photo-ID provisions affecting elections, including residency and absentee voting. These provisions, including the requirement to sign the poll list, are still in effect."

Dude, just give up. Thanks for playing.

Did you not have a problem with the 5000 illegal votes cast in Flordia in 1997 that got tossed out, which if hadn't would not have rightfully given the election to the Democartic candidate? Does that fall into your range of "widespread? This, incidentally, is what gave way for Florida's decision to scrub the rolls so that something like this wouldn't happen again

Did you miss the whole ACORN thing?

I feel like a robot having to write " Man you're an idiot" after everyone of your replies to me. I'm not referring to the 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 as I SPECIFICALLY refered to voter registration. I am referring to Wisconsin's response to the Help American Vote act of 2006, which states:

"As of January 1, 2006, all municipalities in Wisconsin require voter registration prior to a person being allowed to vote.

The federal "Help American Vote Act of 2002" requires any person registering to vote to supply his or her Wisconsin Department of Transportation-issued driver's license number."

and yet you still can't read. What an idiot:

Electors who have not been issued a Wisconsin driver license must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number OR their Wisconsin state ID card number.

"If the elector does not have a current, valid Wisconsin driver license, Wisconsin state ID card, or Social Security Number, the applicant may indicate this by filling in the appropriate circle on the registration form. (Box 2 on GAB-131)."

I'll post it again for you just in case you missed it the first time.

Electors who have not been issued a Wisconsin driver license must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number OR their Wisconsin state ID card number.

If the elector does not have a current, valid Wisconsin driver license, Wisconsin state ID card, or Social Security Number, the applicant may indicate this by filling in the appropriate circle on the registration form. (Box 2 on GAB-131)

So no, photo ID isn't strictly required as you claimed (otherwise the connies wouldn't be trying to shove an unconstitutional requirement down the throats of WI voters). Now that you have been exposed are you going to try to weasel out of it like the Harvard thread (my cousin says hello from Harvard Law, by the way)?

I'd have a little respect for any "conservative" on this board who'd just admit that voter ID laws and voter roll purges exist only to prevent likely Democratic voters from voting. I'll never respect the approval of such an un-American tactic, but it would be nice to see one right-winger on this board who wasn't so gullible.

Voter fraud has been going on since the 1800's and yet you view 15 years ago as being antiquated? I can give you plenty of examples, I just thought you might be impressed with a number like 5000 but I guess I underestimated you, it's merely a blip on the screen, nothing like that could EVER happen again...15 years ago, damn they barely even had the interwebs at that time, huh!!

"Plus the laws were changed to make it harder to commit this type of fraud in the future and guess what? The law was changed to make it harder to throw out votes which was the type of voter fraud that was committed in this case. "

Wait, you mean it's possible to progressively institute laws that are effective in bringing down voter fraud??? Wow, what a concept!! Does that mean it's possible to even reduce it more ( since it's not at zero percent ) by instituting MORE laws? Huhhh

Come one man. You bring up one case, 15 years old, where the "fraud" was disqualifying legal votes. EXACTLY what your "remedy" would do. Show me where voting fraud involving fabricated votes happened at an actual voting booth otherwise your "cure" is misplaced and irrelevant at best and politically motivated voter suppression at worst.