The Necropolitan Sentinel

What the Madison judges are saying, in effect, is that they are the law, despite whatever delusions the Legislature may be under:

A second Dane County judge has granted an injunction blocking the photo ID requirement of the state’s Voter ID law—this one, a permanent injunction.

Judge Richard Niess ruled [that] the photo ID requirement is unconstitutional, in a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.

In his ruling, Niess says Article III of the Wisconsin state constitution “is unambiguous” in laying down the requirements to be a qualified voter.

“The government may not disqualify an elector who possesses those qualifications on the grounds that the voter does not satisfy additional statutorily-created qualifications not contained in Article III,” he wrote.

Niess further cites a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision 132 years ago which says “No constitutional qualification of an elector can in the least be abridged, added to, or altered, by legislation or the pretense of legislation. Any such action would be necessarily absolutely void and of no effect.”

The judge noted that even if a voter brought “incontrovertible and even undisputed proof” of their identity to the polls, they would still be denied the right to vote without a photo ID.

Last week, another Dane County judge granted a temporary injunction so the photo ID requirement would not be in effect for the April 3rd presidential primary and spring elections. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the State would appeal that ruling.

Pure sophistry. What if a person didn’t have state-issued ID or a passport, and wanted to fly? This is just as serious.

Moreover, none of the reports I’ve seen has mentioned what the judge believes would be “incontrovertible proof” that a person meets Article III of the Wisconsin State Constitution, apart from state issued identification. Without being able to give a hypothetical case in which that hypothetical person can prove his identity using some other collection of authentication, the whole argument collapses into the sniveling heap of partisanship that it is.

Madison appears to believe that it can legislate en banc to the rest of the state. The judges in these cases know they haven’t a constitutional leg to stand on, but that’s not the point. The thrust is twofold: 1) try to prevent the April elections from using voter ID, even though the local elections where it’s been used haven’t demonstrated any problems, and 2) try to whip up Progg frenzy over a constitutional red herring.

Bastards.

By the way . . . my absence this weekend wasn’t occasioned by my Twitchy duties. I got notice on Friday afternoon that there was a prospective buyer coming to look at this place, which occasioned an over-nighter of frenzied cleaning. Many thanks to Fishman and his wife for pitching in, and son Brendan and friends. I am sore all over.

A screen cap from Richard Niess’ election site from last year:

There’s the f-word, again. Certainly, there’s an element of fairness and impartiality to justice, but . . . what about constitutionality? Is this fair to the legitimate voters whose ballots are annulled by fraud?

Yeah, but who cares about them when power is on the line?

Tweet