What's your evidence we need them?

It's the law.

@Greg What is the law?

Voter Photo ID provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23

@Greg That part of the law has been stuck down by 2 separate judges as being unconstitutional. It is being appealed but as of now, it is not the law. You do not have to show ID currently.

The law is not being implemented due to injunctions by two liberal Dane County judges, that are trying to legislate from the bench. The injunctions just prevent the Government Accountability Board from enforcing the photo I.D. requirements. It's still the law.

"Under the new Wisconsin law people would be allowed to vote only after showing Wisconsin driver's licenses, state-issued ID cards, certain very limited student IDs, military IDs, passports, naturalization certificates or IDs issued by a tribe based in Wisconsin. The state would issue free IDs for those lacking one of the approved cards. Those living in retirement homes, nursing homes and institutions would be exempt from the law, as would victims of stalking and those who opposed having their photos taken for religious reasons."

If the Dems cheat so much, how the H did Walker get in?
did the Repubs cheat even more?

What proof do you have that Democrats cheat? Or is this slander?

@Robert

No, you were so far behind that you should have cheated even more.

It would not be "slander", the correct term would be "libel". Libel would not apply here for soooo many reasons.

@Robert Merlin
"If the Dems cheat so much, how the H did Walker get in? did the Repubs cheat even more?"

No Robert, enough people in the state of Wisconsin wised up enough to realize the Dems were doing nothing but driving the state into the ground. After years of job losses and rising taxes, we finally decided to take our state back.

The fraud has never been the 30 or 40% level. It's just enough to tip the scale in Dem's favor. We are a very, very, very mixed state. But the tide has turned towards the red and now the Dems have no choice but to cheat!

@Terence

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60588-CV0.wpd.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/09/weekinreview/boss-tweed-is-gone-but-not-his-vote.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/lm23.pdf

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_urbanities-election.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html

@Terence: Assuming your poll workers don't know who you are, you won't have a problem with me voting in your name, right? Because they don't know me, either. Fraud is that easy. How will you prove it when you get denied at your poll, because I beat you to it? With your ID, after the fact? Sorry, my illegitimate vote still has been cast. It was that easy without voter ID. Should piss you off, really. Welcome to my side.

Only an idiot would call it racism.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_aeeeae9a-2c9d-510d-ad37-5501561f742d.html

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2009/sep/30/wis-board-seek-crackdown-08-felon-voters/

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/45680957.html

http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11301694

Luke, I understand that you are trying to impress us all with the string of links, hoping that no one would actually read them. However, outside of some rightwing "reports" of alleged misconduct 30 years ago, none of your links concern any type of voter fraud that would be prevented by requiring an ID. Nothing in them rationally supports disenfranchising thousands of Wisconsonites who have the constitutional right to vote.

There is no proof that anyone would be disenfranchised.

So if a tree falls in the forest & no one sees it, it didn't happen. By your logic, we should just eliminate the need for ID altogether & use the honor system for everything.

@Robert

On the contrary, every time someone votes using an absentee ballot and then votes in person is able to be documented because of an ID. In addition, the same goes for felons voting.

Whenever the law is broken in those cases, the criminal only needs to say that the person who voted was not them. After all, what proof is there that they were the one voting? The best evidence is the ID.

Terence Amerson -

Too much truth; too much fact; too much logic...

Don't you get it yet?

This is the Republican Party!

They have the power!

They have Moammar Walker!

They can and will do what they want!

They simply have no shame...

Luke -

As reported here many times: FELONS CAN VOTE IN WISCONSIN!

The only provision is that they must have completely their full sentence, released from probation and parole... I know it is hard for Republicans, but try and keep up...

@John Wilson,

Obviously. I've said that a number of times. What does that have to do with my comments about felons who illegally vote?

If they are voting illegally, then by definition, their vote is not legal.

Good argument Terance. I refuse to show an ID to vote. I've voted at the same poll for years. When I walk in at least one of the poll workers recognizes me. My address remains the same.Walker won the recall election because all those that signed the petitions did not vote. They seldom do and are under represented and should not cry in their cups. Were losing our rights folks but you just sit at home eating your ice cream and increasing the size of your fat lazy butts. Don't vote. Let the nation remain a cess pool while we lose our constitutional rights and the Gestapo gets stronger.

@Luke. I understand your point, but voter ID does NOT prevent felons on supervision from voting and does NOT prevent people from voting absentee and then voting in person. What prevents that is the notations in the registration books that a particular person already has voted or is in eligible to vote because of a felony conviction.

You effectively admit that since your real point is not that voter ID would prevent such illegal voting, but that voter ID could be used to make prosecution easier in those cases. As a criminal defense attorney, I am not convinced. We already require a signature when voting, whether in person or by absentee ballot, that can be compared to the defendant's signature. Also, nothing would prevent someone intent on voting illegally from creating a fake ID, just as many young people still do for purposes of buying alcohol. Accordingly, any impact of voter ID on possible prosecutions of illegally voting felons or double voters would be minuscule at best, even in the tiny number of cases where such misconduct takes place. Such a minuscule impact cannot rationally justify the disenfranchisement of even one voter, let alone the thousands affected by this law.

@Robert,

I don't find your comments very convincing. First, if someone is going to vote a second time, changing their signature to not look like their usual one would be the smartest thing to do. In fact, we had someone from Sussex who changed how she spelled her name so that she would not be detected on two recall petitions.

Also, I find your argument that someone could make a fake ID a little weak. After all, you aren't suggesting that in all other situations in life where ID'S are required that they be done away with, are you? Of course not. The truth is that it's much harder to make a fake ID than it is to fake a signature, and you have just suggested that a signature adds reliability of some sort, so it appears that you have just argued for the least reliable reference to replace the most reliable one.

Finally, the examples I've discussed are only detected because there is a paper trail of some sort, supported by some required standards. In those cases, we can only detect them after the fact, unlike other forms of vote fraud. Therefore, expanding the requirements so that additional forms of fraud are detectable is worthwhile.

@Robert

Also, I find your comment that vote fraud is relatively rare a little weak. The truth is that the means by which we can detect it is weak, but in areas where we have the means to look for vote fraud we do find it.

You seem to make the point that since vote fraud is rarely discovered, it is not worthy of the trouble. However, close votes are common these days, especially at the municipal level, and a few illegal votes can change the course of history. When that happens the minority wins the vote, and all those in the majority are therefore disenfranchised.

Finally, there have been many instances of organized voter fraud in American history. Protecting the credibility of the election process is worthy of voter ID. Those who say that voter ID disenfranchises people can make the same argument about the fact that people have to drive to the polling places, need to be able to read, need to know their own address, or need to be organized enough to absentee vote. But those things come with the voting process, and all of them contribute to the soundness of the voting process and results. Voter ID will help to detect fraud both before and after it has happened.

@Robert,

Correction: We had TWO officials sign recall petitions and change their names on the documents in Sussex.

Luke –

You write in your post to Robert, “Finally, there have been many instances of organized voter fraud in American history. [Could you be vaguer?]

Conversely, now we have come from one or two ineligible felons voting to MANY INSTANCES OF ORGANIZED VOTER FRAUD… Do we have another JFK conspiracy going on here? [Parenthetically, 2013 is the 50th anniversary and many secreted papers are scheduled for release then…]

I am interested in these “…many instances of organized voter fraud in American history.”

Were these in Wisconsin?

Where might I find some of these “…many instances of organized voter fraud in American history.”

Moreover, would voter ID, such as we almost have implemented here in Wisconsin, have thwarted it?

It really seems to me that America has a long, sorry history of various forms of voter disenfranchisement and suppression, rather than MANY INSTANCES OF ORGANIZED VOTER FRAUD IN AMERICA…

@John Wilson,

Yes, I suppose I could be more vague. After all, I provided links to examples, including one link to the Supreme Court ruling in which the threat of organized voter fraud in American history was positively referenced by both those that voted in the majority and also the dissenters.

Luke –

I guess my ESP was not working when I sent you a legitimate specific request for the “many organized voter fraud” incidents… or, perhaps you did not understand… because you were too busy flooding the blog with numerous “links.”

Which of the 9-superflous links that you simply decimated the Patch with should I look at?

I think that in lieu of the fact that you simply cannot substantiate even (1) legitimate instance, much less many, of the “many organized voter fraud” incidents you wrote about, we can dismiss your purely emotional claims regarding “many organized voter fraud” incidents as unadulterated fantasy or psychotic ramblings… of a deeply troubled mind…

I thought so…

Warriors Mom, voting is a Constitutionally-protected right. The U.S. Dept. of Justice has struck down attempts at voter ID laws in former slavery states. This law is a 21st century "poll tax" because many disenfranchised voters will have to pay for birth certificates, etc., in order to qualify for their free i.d.

@Bren

On the contrary, the U.S. supreme court has decided in favor of voter ID. Its ruling is actually quite informative, and worth the read.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

@Bren,

And in case you don't read the ruling, the Court ruled that voter ID PROTECTS the rights of the voter.

Luke, my comment referred to DOJ not the U.S. Supreme Court. With a 5-4 conservative majority, what's the surprise that voter ID is acceptable? So much for the nonpartisan U.S. Supreme Court that also brought us Citizens United.

Bren,

The vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the ruling.

And my comment was not regarding the DOJ, but it was about Constitutionally-protected rights.

Guess who voted in favor of the voter ID law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Let's kindly drop the ruse. We all know why we have this. You do to. So let's cut the high and mighty nonsense.

@Keith,

Yes, we all know why I want voter ID. The reasons are outlined in the Supreme Court's decision.

Then Luke are you for expanding the number of outlets offering IDs who that everyone in the state is within a few miles? Do you favor expanding their hours?

If not, then it is voter suppression.

Cut the nonsense. Your motives are as transparent as Paris Hilton's wardrobe.

@keith

Is anyone's right to drive being suppressed? The voter ID is free at at same place you get yor driver's license. Get real.

@Luke The voter ID may be free, however, the documentation required to get the vote r ID is not free. This can cause an unfair burden on those that cannot afford to get the birth certificates.

Warrior mom...Then why don't we have our photos on our credit cards?

Warriors Mom -

Yes, and every time I sell one of your children cigarettes and alcohol, I know that he/she is the same person shown on the ID... no fake ID's in Wisconsin that's for sure!

Who cares if the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided this issue?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

So do states only have rights if they agree with the right-wing fringe?

Bren,

You tell me. Is it possible to get an abortion in those states?

Hey Bren, is it ok if I buy my next gun without showing my ID? After all, I have a constitutional right... Please explain your unwillingness to protect my rights!

Hey Gear, I've never heard of anyone killed with a ballot, have you?

Luke, with all due respect, the U.S. Supreme Court has not decided the issue. The Court merely upheld a particular state statute against a particular challenge under the federal constitution. It has not ruled on whether the far more restrictive and unjustified provisions of the Wisconsin Republicans' law meets federal constitutional standards. As I recall, the Supreme Court long ago similarly upheld a number of gun control laws as not contrary to the constitution,but that didn't mean that all such laws are constitutional.

Also, you overlook the fact that the state constitution independently guaranties the right to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal constitution does not control state constitutional protections.

@Bren: Nor has anyone ever been killed by showing their ID, to take your illogical answer to its illogical extreme.

@Robert

The courts will decide that. However, this part of the thread is discussing Bren's comments about voter ID in America. Therefore, your comments are misdirected.

@Luke - Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. Bren's point is totally accurate. Voting IS a constitutionally protected right and the Supreme Court has not held, or even suggested, otherwise. Just as with the right to bear arms, the right to vote can be infringed only if there is a compelling reason to do so and the infringement is the least necessary to accomplish the State's legitimate and compelling purpose.

The Supreme Court has not held that Wisconsin's voter ID law meets those legal standards, so once again your reference is inaccurate, and given the number of people effectively disenfranchised by this law and the at best minimal legitimate purpose behind the law, it would be highly unlikely that it would uphold the law, even though we do have the most activist and right wing U.S. Supreme Court in 80 years.

@Robert,

Bren made the comment that "Voting is a Constitutionally-protected right in America"

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but the Supreme Court has decided in favor of voter ID. So to employ the argument that voting in America is a Constitutionally-protected right" is exactly the argument you DON'T want to categorically use against voter ID.

@Luke, perhaps you misread my post - you certainly misread the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court has held that the right to vote IS constitutionally protected. As with the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, that does not mean that the government is barred from ever infringing that right. It merely means that it cannot do so unless the infringement is absolutely necessar to further a compelling state interest.

Accordingly, the right to vote IS constitutionally protected. As with the right to bear arms, the fact that it is constitutionally protected does not mean it is absolute.

@Robert

The issue has never been whether or not people have the right to vote. Once again, the right to vote is not a argument against voter ID, since the Supreme Court has ruled that voter ID actually protects the vote.

Therefore, when Bren employs the right to vote as a " Constitutionally-protected right in America," it does not affect voter ID. Rather, voter ID protects your vote and mine, according to the Court.

Now, so far you have responded to this issue by discussing Wisconsin, and then you told me about the court ruling in favor of a person's right to vote. I hope you can now see that you are missing the point. The point is the American's right to vote as it relates to the Court's ruling on voter ID. You have the right to vote, and voter ID protects it, says the Court.

No one in this thread is saying nor ever has said that the voter does not have the right to vote.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

@Robert,

It just occurred to me that you might have taken my first response to Bren as being a serious one, when in fact I was mimicking her sarcastic "who cares if..." phrase. Therefore, I too was being sarcastic.

Luke, I actually assumed that you were being sarcastic and that you had misconstrued the Supreme Court's decision, and I w right on both points.

The right to vote most definitely IS an argument against voter ID because it is that right that is being infringed. True, preventing actual voter fraud may protect everyone's right to vote. However, the means of accomplishing that cannot unduly burden the right to vote. The Supreme Court did not hold otherwise. It merely held that the challengers in the Indiana case had not proven there case. That is not a general holding that voter ID is always valid, contrary to what you keep claiming. Reading the Supreme Court's decision, I can see a number of distinctions between the law in Indiana and the voter ID law imposed by the Republicans in an effort to suppress votes here in Wisconsin.

The real question under the federal constitution is whether the legitimate purposes of this particular law in preventing the speculative possibility of the limited types of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID outweighs the substantial burdens placed on those who are constitutionally entitled to vote. On the federal level, the question will be whether those burdened by the law do a better job than the Indiana plaintiffs in proving up the factual basis for their case.

That, of course, is a separate question from whether the right to vote under the state constitution applies the same balancing test applied in federal court or whether the Republicans' purpose to suppress votes from democratic-leaning constituencies requires application of a strict scrutiny test.

@Robert,

Again, as I have repeatedly told you, my comment was about the Supreme Court's ruling, demonstrating that voter ID is not categorically unconstitutional. I did not say that the ruling applies to the Wisconsin's particular law, as I have told you elsewhere this thread. You keep insinuating Wisconsin into the conversation about what I said concerning non-ID voting being "Constitutionally-protected right in America," and claim that I have misunderstood something about its relationship to Wisconsin. "America" and "Wisconsin" are not synonyms, so when I refer to one I am not referring to the other.

Again, voter ID and "Constitutionally-protected" rights are mutually exclusive in Bren's mind. But contrary to what she claims, the Supreme Court does not agree, and has ruled in favor of the opposing party in said case, and it has delineated its reasons for doing so, as I mentioned.

Again, anything you say about Wisconsin has nothing to do with what I have been addressing with Bren. As I said before concerning Wisconsin, "The courts will decide." I hope I have been clear regarding this issue, but if you want me to direct you to where I have already made these points I will do so.

You would have to be a real loser not to have I.D in 2012. Do they even know who's running? Have these folks seen a automobile before? Geesh! The new I.D law will help sieve out some of the entitlement bums from voting.They always vote Democrat anyway for the handouts. Have any of these opponents of the law hear about the Acorn debacle? Hello!

My, my, Erich. Loser? That might be the case if elderly people with expired drivers licenses were allowed to use them to prove identity. A picture proves who you are, right? And long-standing legal registration in the precinct proves the citizenship issue.

Apparently not, otherwise this would not be an issue.

@Craig...No you don't. Birth certificate, SS # and place of residence. No photo ID required.

In my experience, for routine non-emergency care, both hospitals and doctors offices ask for photo-ID, at initial admissions/registration. They cite the FTC(Federal Trade Commission) Red Flags Law that requires them to confirm your identity.

If, in-fact, the FTC Red Flags Rule requires the photo-ID requirement, it appears the Federal Government is reducing or eliminating the disfranchisement burden on the State.

Can it. You are looking to suppress votes. You are fooling nobody.

Keif is looking to steal our votes. He is fooling nobody.

Will, Good post.

The only person stealing votes in this state is Kathy Nicholas.

Here's the reason for voter ID -- http://tinyurl.com/c6bl5se

And the name is Keith, jackass.

Nice to meet you Keith Jackass.

common sense - HELLO! Not hard to get an ID!!!!!

Greg - you are funny!

wfb51, if you have the right documentation, no, it shouldn't be too hard to get id. If you don't...

It isn't intended to get people to get out and vote any more than requiring that someone must be a resident of the state encourages people to vote.
You ask a really odd question.

Mike, you make an excellent point that the real problem in this country is not the disappearingly small number of cases of voter fraud, let alone the even tinier number of such cases that could be prevented by voter ID, but the general apathy among potential voters. It seems to me that we should be encouraging those who have a constitutional right to vote to do so, not place artificial barriers like Voter ID in the way of those who are entitled to vote and want to do so.

That is absolutely correct. The cost to obtain a birth certificate in Wisconsin is $20. It can be more or less in other states. It may end up that it is hard to find the birth certificate of someone and that costs more and requires additional documentation.

The hours and locations to get an ID are also an issue. I live in Menomonee Falls and I know the closest place is about 10 minutes away but then you have to wait like an hour in line to be able get it. This is a huge inconvenience and if you don't drive, it is very expensive to get to the DMV to get the ID and then if you don't have the correct documentation, you need to make another trip.

I have to drive to get to the polling place, gas is expensive...Poll Tax
I have to wait in line to vote...Disenfranchised
I have to completely color in the oval, I just want to use a check mark...Disenfranchised
I want to vote at 9pm on the 6th...Disenfranchised
I don't want to state my name or address, I don't want to sign the poll book, I don't want to register....
Just bring my ballot to me when, where and how I want it, it's my right to vote.

Again - Greg - you are funny!!! So true!

No you don't Keif, you simply take and mooch. Let's all recall the Village of Shorewood loan you did not pay back....damn lying hypocrite.

Wow. Alfred has gone so far as to assume a female name for one of his alter egos here on the patch. Taking trolling to a whole new level.

Racism? No one cares about race anymore,just the gooey eyed white guilt,college brainwashed, fat,ugly liberals that think they are cool cause they are "edgy".

Because voting is a Constitutionally-protected right.

And yet the Supreme Court said Voter ID is legal? How is that?

@Donny - only because you asked - The Supreme Court determined that the particular circumstances and the particular provisions of a particular law were constitutional, not that all voter ID laws are constitutional in all circumstances. Just as with the right to bear arms, the state can infringe the right to vote ONLY if the specific methods used are necessary to further a compelling state interest.

The Wisconsin Republicans' voter suppression ID law neither furthers a compelling state interest - the type of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID is minuscule at best - nor is narrowly tailored to that necessary to protect the asserted state interest without unnecessarily infringing the right to vote - since it arbitrarily limits the acceptable forms of ID, requires the payment of fees for the documentation necessary to obtain the ID, and specifically bars DVM employees from mentioning the fact that the IDs are free unless the applicant brings it up first.

Hopefully, that answers your question.

Most of the social services ID can be verified electronically. They are able to verify who you are with your social security number and birthday. You still have to send a recent utility bill, lease or some other document that shows you reside in the county or state to receive the services.

You need a Photo ID to apply. Call there and ask.

I have had to apply for some Social Services through the state and I did not have to provide photo ID. There are certain services that you do need to present a photo ID but there are also other ways to prove who you are and they will help you get the necessary documentation to be able to get the services you need.

The democrats do not say people are to stupid to obtain ID's. It is the ability of certain people to obtain the ID's due to the documentation required to obtain the ID. It costs money to obtain that documentation and that is the issue. It is also the fact that students with a Wisconsin Student ID with documentation that they live in the area is not an acceptable ID without giving up the rights to their home states ID.

That's a stupid comment we hear repeated all the time. The obstructions go beyond the point of being "stupid." The GOP knows that, and that's why they are doing it.

The comment in fact is racist.

Keep using them as your barging chip racist.

True - so insulting. The rural poor will have a harder time that he urban folks.

No Tier 4 business owner subsidized buses for the rural residents. That's pretty racist Keith

Dave, good point!

Why?

Nice idea Bill, but the right doesn't want every eligible voter to vote. They have said that.

I would guess the left wing doesn't want every eligible voter to vote also. But the right wing wants everyone, that votes legally, to have their vote count.

@Greg, The right wingers keep saying that, but nothing about voter ID makes their vote count any more than it did before. The fact is that the incompetence of the clerk's office in Waukesha is far more damaging to the right wingers' votes than the minuscule number of cases of voter fraud that might be prevented by the voter ID law.

@Robert, The Waukesha clerk issue was an isolated problem and is being resolved, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Voter I.D. did not cause that problem. On the other hand, Voter I.D. would have resolved many of the voting problems seen in Racine County.
Your first and last statement contradict each other. If I follow all of the laws and I vote, and one case of voter fraud cancels out my vote, who then is disenfranchised? ME! Minuscule or not, it is taking my rights away.

Your right! Where are all the poor Republicans complaining about the law. Never a peep from them. The left just wants the entitlement crowd to be able to vote. These backwards people probably don't even know any of the issues anyway.. They just choose Obama for the freebies or because he is black.

@Luke -- Did he mean a form of ID with your picture on it to prove you are who you say you are? Or did he mean the kind where you have to produce a birth certificate to get it, even though you've been a registered voter for over forty years and proved your US citizenship amply at that time? And you have to pay to get that birth certificate?

I know that Milwaukee County made available 5000 free birth certificates and less than 3% were issued. Other counties did the same.
There were several organizations that had vans, running throughout the city, to take people downtown everyday of early voting, for the June recall election. They should have made a stop at the DMV.

Greg -

I know that there are 13-legged, purple Caucasian midgets on Mars and other planets too...

How about a link or two for the source of "5000 free birth certificates..."

Here you go John:

http://county.milwaukee.gov/VtialRecordsSystem9855.htm

The Anti-Alinsky & Greg -

Yes, I'm aware that I can get a certified COPY of MY birth certificate, if I was born in Milwaukee County for $20.00. That is not the question I asked. [Feel free to insert any answer here...]

"I know that Milwaukee County made available 5000 free birth certificates and less than 3% were issued. Other counties did the same.

There were several organizations that had vans, running throughout the city, to take people downtown every day of early voting, for the June recall election. They should have made a stop at the DMV."

How does this address the alleged "5000 FREE BIRTH CERTIFICATES", allegedly being delivered by VANS RUNNING THROUGHOUT THE CITY?

What are these "several organizations?"

What vans?

What 5000 free birth certificates?

If something like this happened, and Greg maintains that it did, perhaps you can provide me with a link to this story... rather than a link where I can fill out a form, with all birth information included, mother & father, with birth dates, enclose a check for $20.00, and send it in to the Milwaukee Country Clerk and obtain a certified copy of my birth certificate.

THIS ISN'T FREE & IT CERTAINLY ISN'T 5000 BEING DELIVERED IN A VAN...

[Feel free to insert any answer here]

@Greg -- "I know that Milwaukee County made available 5000 free birth certificates and less than 3% were issued. Other counties did the same."

All well and good, but what if you weren't born in Milwaukee County? What if you were born in a shack in Louisiana in 1930? That parish isn't issuing free birth certificates, assuming a birth certificate even exists.

John,
"I know that there are 13-legged, purple Caucasian midgets on Mars and other planets too..."
Did you find them with Google or the like? How about trying it for "Milwaukee, 5000 birth certificates"? You can even copy and paste.

John,
You can read about the vans here: http://www.wuwm.com/news/wuwm_news.php?articleid=10491
The vans and birth certificate comments were two seperate issues, but the vans could be used to get people any form of required I.D.
Have you been hanging around on Mars, with your little purple friends, for the past year? You really should get informed on the issues, then your comments would mean something.

Greg -

Thanks.

The VANS in your link were clearly provided for people who needed a ride to go VOTE…

"I know that Milwaukee County made available 5000 free birth certificates and less than 3% were issued. Other counties did the same."

“There were several organizations that had vans, running throughout the city, to take people downtown every day of early voting, for the June recall election. They should have made a stop at the DMV.”

YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED:

Where is the information regarding Milwaukee County making “available 5000 free birth certificates and less than 3% were issued” (?)

What “Other counties did the same.” (?)

I'm really NOT trying to be difficult here, just looking for some context and answers...

And you think I’m on Mars?

Randy and John,

If you are that concerned, why don't you get your fellow Libs to pay to get Mr. Louisiana's birth certificate rather than paying someone to register hundreds of fake voters?

Something to think about.

Here you go. Vote for an honest person.

bluecheddar1 ‏@bluecheddar1

There's a Democrat running against Robin Vos...her name is Kelly Albrecht: http://albrechtforassembly.com/ #WISpolitics #WIunion #p2

You mean dumbassed billboard of the year.

beyond dumbassed!

vincemegna profile

vincemegna SIGN THE PETITION!!! Tell JB Van Hollen to stop playing political games with our right to vote! bit.ly/NI5Pe6 #NoVoterID