Voter ID stalled in the Senate

The MJS is reporting that Democrats maneuvered to postpone the vote until Thursday. What the good reporter does not explain is exactly how they did it.

Stuff like that makes me nuts. If you’re going to waste ink, at least do it right and give me the whole story.

Nonetheless, I’ll defend the Senate Democrats. If it was a legitimate maneuver (greatly unknown thanks to that reporter) then it was a viable tool in the tool box and no one should complain. That’s why you keep a tool box. Will it change the outcome? No. But no doubt they appeased themselves and one or two of the base by delaying this forty-eight hours or so. It’s a completely different issue than, say, leaving the state.

As Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said, it should get to the governor by the end of the week. I am not holding my breath. So much that is supposed to go right with this regime has fallen flat so far. I’ll believe it the first time I have to show identification to vote.

I hate to be the pessimist in the room, but I feel certain someone will run to a federal judge with this one, too, and implementation will be restrained just long enough to get through the November 2012 presidential vote. It’s the only way Obama can win this state.

Remember you heard it here, first.

Comments

  1. The Lorax says:

    You’re right for once – letting people vote is the only way Obama will win the state.

    Your side has failed to must evidence of voter fraud beyond a few isolated cases. And some of those people voted for Republicans.

    Republicans only win when they suppress the vote and turnout. Cool.

  2. Your side has failed to prove that Voter ID suppresses voters.

  3. The Lorax says:
  4. There is no obligation to prove voter fraud in order to pass this bill. Get over it.

    Also, one can easily argue the only way Obama wins is if Democrats are allowed to continue with questionable voting tactics. You know, smokes for votes the day of the election; slashing tires of those driving voters who might cast a ballot for the opponent, stuff like that.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    Lorax
    In 2010 Republicans did extremely well in Wisconsin. Based on your statement they had to “supress the vote and turnout” in order to win. On voter turnout Wisconsin had a 51.7 % participation. To put this in perspective there were only 6 states in the country with higher percentage turnouts.

    http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

    Please give specific examples of how the Republicans supressed voter turnout and voting in Wisconsin in 2010 to the extent it allowed them to win the election(s).

  6. Oooh. That’s good Randy. Remind me not to argue with you.

  7. The Lorax says:

    I was referring specifically to the 2012 race.