Appeals Court Upholds Voter ID-But second case still pending
Judge Brian Blanchard (former Dane County District Attorney and Democrat) wrote the District IV decision and says the arguments by the League of Women Voters failed in part because there was no evidence supporting their claims that voters would be disenfranchised, “we reject the League’s additional, implied argument that the requirement is unconstitutional under the Article III right to suffrage because it imposes a restriction that is, on its face, so burdensome that it effectively denies potential voters their right to vote, and is therefore constitutionally “unreasonable.” We express no opinion as to whether such an argument might have merit if supported by fact finding regarding the burdens imposed. However, in this facial challenge in which the League does not rely on any fact finding or evidentiary material, the implied argument falls short.”
The Voter ID law has been on hold for nearly two years, and was not in place for any of the recalls or the presidential election last fall. However, this ruling does not guarantee it will be in place for next year’s elections.
That’s because the second appeal is pending in the District II Court of Appeals. Judge Brian Blanchard explains in the District IV decision the second case, brought by the NAACP, introduces some of the evidence the League’s case did not, “we note that a separate constitutional challenge to the photo identification requirement created in Act 23 is currently pending in a different district of this court before another panel of judges, in a case that has been litigated somewhat differently. See Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker, No. 2012AP1652 (District II). We highlight from the outset that the case before us involves a purely facial constitutional challenge based on Article III of the state constitution, and not an as-applied constitutional challenge based on any state or federal constitutional provision.”
Even Attorney General Van Hollen’s statement on the District IV decision acknowledges it’s not over. “While today’s decision is an important step toward full vindication of the law, we recognize that other challenges are still pending that address different issues. We will continue to defend the law and look forward to favorable decisions in those other cases as well.”
And of course, this doesn’t rule out the loser in either case appealing to the Supreme Court. So stay tuned.
http://wptschedule.org/hereandnowupdate/?p=2198
