The Wisconsin Voter ID Law, currently under injunction by 2 judges, was appealed by the state Department of Justice (headed by Republican Attorney General Van Hollen) and 2 appeals courts have now sent them directly to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.
One lawsuit was brought by the NAACP's Milwaukee branch and Voces de la Frontera, an immigrants' rights group. The other was brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.
Earlier this month, two different Dane County circuit court judges issued injunctions blocking the law before Tuesday's presidential primary.
The state Department of Justice appealed both decisions to the appeals court, which sent the cases to the Supreme Court.
Republicans rammed the bill through both legislative bodies that they controlled and the bill was happily signed into law by Governor Scott Walker. The bill will deny ballots to anyone without a state approved ID (gun permits are approved, student IDs aren't).
Thousands of Wisconsinites, mostly students, minorities, senior citizens, and those who live in poverty who do not have a state approved ID will be denied their right to vote; the not so hidden intent of these bills that have cropped up all over the country to reduce the number of Democratic voters.
Earlier this month 2 separate judges issued injunctions to the law, citing voter suppression. Despite the objection of the Government Accountability Board, which over sees elections, State Attorney General Van Hollen quickly appealed as his attempts to get the injunctions dropped failed. The GAB wanted clear voting prodecures in place at least for the April 3 Presidential Primary and municiple elections so election officials in the state would not have to scramble at the last minute to change procedures at the polls.
Bottom line: This isn't good news. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is controlled by RW justices who have a 1 vote advantage on every decision and vote along ideological lines.
There are, however, 2 cases which have been filed in Federal Court citing voter disenfranchisement as the legal basis for overturning the new law. Those cases have not yet been heard.
I hate to post and run, but I have errands to run and an appointment to be kept that can't be postponed. But let me leave you with a quick laugh. I truly am blogging in my pajamas right now. I came to check the news, saw this and started typing. After I get ready I'll check back before I leave.
PS: No, I'm not in the basement.
Update: Stopping by before I leave the house. Now dressed with make up (don't want to scare the neighbors or their pets) and ready to run errands and get appointment done ASAP so I can come back quickly. Gotta check my news!
Update: I have returned with appointment kept and errands done, but need to unload groceries (working on the last roll of TP!), but I came up to look at comments and check for fresh news. Excellent comments from the Lawyer Kossacks!
Update: Time to Look Ethical Edition: Hahahaha! In a small procedural matter, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Gablemann took the opportunity to show he wasn't "owned" by the law firm that gave him over $100,000 of free legal services by voting against them. It's the first time he's ever voted against any side that the firm represented.
State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman wrote an opinion last week that ruled against the client of a law firm that did not charge Gableman for two years of legal work.
The 4-3 decision is the first involving Michael Best & Friedrich since it became public last year that the firm did not require Gableman to pay for its services when it defended him against an ethics charge.
Gableman's willingness to rule against Michael Best's client "shows there's no actual bias going on," said Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
Yeah, right, I'm convinced (not).
But Monroe Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School in New York, said Gableman should have recused himself from the case and others involving clients of Michael Best because of his relationship with the firm.
"The outcome of the case is irrelevant because the action (to recuse) is supposed to be taken at the outset," Freedman said.
He refuses to recuse himself from these cases and other Justices who vote with him along ideological lines support his refusal to recuse. One of those Justices went so far as to say that recusals should be extremly rare, however, regarding his own pending ethics case, Justice Prosser forgot his previous statement while insisting that all Justices recuse themselves from his case (leaving an empty bench which would kill the case against him).
Here's a quick refresher on Gablemann and Michael Best:
The state Judicial Commission filed a complaint against Gableman in 2008 alleging he violated judicial ethics rules by lying in a campaign ad about Louis Butler, the justice that Gableman had defeated that year.
Gableman's colleagues on the Supreme Court split 3-3 in 2010 on whether he had violated the ethics rules, and the commission suspended its work on the case.
Michael Best represented Gableman during that time, and in December, it disclosed that it did not require Gableman to pay for his attorneys fees. The law firm and the justice had a deal that said the firm would be paid only if Gableman prevailed and then persuaded the state to pay those bills.
Gableman couldn't ask the state to pay for his attorneys' fees because a majority of the court did not side with him, and the firm was not paid.
Groups have asked the Judicial Commission and state Government Accountability Board to investigate whether the agreement violated a ban on providing gifts for judges. Both agencies conduct investigations in secret and have not said whether they are looking into the issue.