Steve I think you're overlooking the constitutional right of some folks to remain gruntled.

I wonder why people had issue with signing the voter book. I would have thought that would be the least controversial of the new requirements...

I voted yesterday and was delighted to proudly show my identification. The process was an uncomplicated as anyone would have expected, except for anal retentive liberals. The only aspect of the process that surprised me, was when I was handed a RED pen to sign my name in the voter book. I said, are you sure that I sould be signing in RED? I was told that RED is the proper color. Ans that was it!

Let's get this law in place across America ... it works as all non-liberals expected it would.

Costs?! You're worried about costs? What some 10,000 free id's were offered and 153 people showed up to get them. Breaking the bank there.

The recalls are costing tens of millions of dollars but that is just and good and for the kids. But voter ID is bad and somehow now your side finds that deficit spending is a bad thing.

You can keep waiting for that one person to be the poser child of injustice.
I will keep waiting for the apology.

Sounds like your friend needs to update his voting registration and or ID to match current residence. There was no problem and he was allowed to vote.

I also agree that the poll workers were not aware of all issues coming up at the polls. I witnessed someone about to be turned away because her hair color in her DL photo looked different than in person. After a second opinion, she was allowed to vote.

Add the fact that poll workers are supposed to validate signatures with the signature on an acceptable form of identification - just sounds like an excessive amount of criteria to comply with just to be able to vote.

As Donny pointed out above: You have to sign for OTC cold/allergy medicine along with an ID too.
At least with a signature at the polls, there can be charges brought against anyone for fraud or forgery if they are caught cheating the system.

Another way of looking at it, Angela, is that, given the importance ascribed to voting its surprising that it's handled in such a haphazard way. G-d bless the volunteers for putting in the time and all, but just about every foible that's been mentioned here had such a great likelihood of happening (the address situation, the hair color change, etc) that it should have been addressed by whomever it is who's in charge of setting them up for the day prior to the polls opening. Maybe what this shows, as much as anything, is that the folks in charge of running the polls need to oversee their charges a bit better and, perhaps, are in need of better training themselves.

@Greenfield homeowner -- you are right the clerks aren't always aware of the issues that come up at the polls. This story was definitely a starting point. We do these types of stories to specifically to start dialogue on these topics. Thanks for telling us about your friend's experience.

In reading the comments from this string, I think it's important to note that this primary had very low turnout. For example, Caledonia has 16,395 registered voters, but 3,860 people voted. That's less than 25 percent. I'm curious to see how the rest of this perpetual election season goes.

your friend should have has address changed or when his renewel comes up it may be returned to sender as unknown

So your friend was too lazy to correct his address yet was surprised that EVENTUALLY the time came when his id and address needed to be verified? Pretty stupid if you ask me.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to fish?

Keith - While we're on the topic of the Constitution, where does it say that you have the right to vote?

at least they don't need a blue pill like old age white democrats, "cough, cough"

Read a little further down, Jay. You'll note Denise's mention of the guy who got ticked off because they didn't take his Veteran's ID and chose not to vote. You had the guy with the monkey picture on his ID. Assuming he elected not to take that off, he may not have been allowed to vote. Based purely on the article itself, it appears that those who didn't vote made the decision not to do so, despite having the proper ID available to them.

I'm sure Denise can further clarify if necessary.

The military ID should have been accepted.
http://gab.wi.gov/node/1881

Unless it really wasn't actually a 'military ID' from a 'uniformed service'.
http://gab.wi.gov/node/1997

Oh I read the whole article Bob. And as my brief statement said the "key phrase" was "but MOST voted anyway" Most does not mean all but 2 people voted to me. Bottom line is this is basically a poll tax to some and others it makes it very difficult to vote. This state has had very little to almost no voter fraud issues, and the law was not necessary. But I guess the tax and spend conservatives had to have it.

Having 'very little to almost no voter fraud issues' does not mean that voter fraud was not happening. It just means that we may have had an inability to detect and prosecute voter fraud. Voter ID requirements eliminate any doubts and gives us a high level of confidence that the people voting are indeed real, living, and eligible to vote.

Well Cowdung this law wont do anything to prevent it. All it did do was waste money on a generally non-existent problem. And yes I realize there will always be some fraud, no matter what law you have. My point is that there was no major issue that this law needed to address and it really does not prevent a whole lot.

How can you say that there were no major issues?

Since the kind of voter fraud that the ID law will prevent is nearly impossible to detect, you really can't claim that there really weren't any issues--there just weren't any issues that the authorities were aware of.

@Cowdung,
So you are saying a lack of evidence is evidence? I am always amazed at the logical pretzels people twist themselves in to justify Voter ID. It is not true that voter impersonation is impossible to detect. It is actually very easy to detect in large numbers, and only in large numbers would it be able to affect an election outcome. Poll workers are usually long-time residents of the area. They know many voters by sight and are aware of deaths and movements in the neighborhood. Although they may miss a few impersonators, eventually someone would attempt to use an ID that is known to the poll workers. Of course, this is even more true for the genuine voters themselves. If they show up to vote and are told they already voted, then you detect the fraud. How many cases of that have occurred? I have only read of one so far.
Of course now you will bring up some nefarious cabal of vote thieves that carefully research their victims to make sure they aren't known by the poll workers and won't show up to vote. But what is to prevent such a group from making fake IDs? So the end result is that Voter ID does nothing to prevent voter fraud.

Jay you are just gay

No, I'm saying that a lack of evidence does not mean that our elections are free from fraud. I believe that the voter ID law is a reasonable step in making sure that our elections are fair.

If we made it illegal for partisan groups like ACORN (for example) to register 'voters', then I wouldn't feel so strongly about having a system in place to verify that voters are matched to their registrations.

Before voter ID, there was no way to verify that a voter registration was legitimate or that the person voting under that registration was doing so legally. As long as there was a name attached to a valid address, the registration would be placed on the books. Before voter ID was passed, poll workers could not ask voters for ID if they suspected that the person was not who they claim to be. If the voter gave a name and address and that name and address appear on the registered voter list, the person was allowed to vote.

Pushing groups to have to create fake IDs to vote makes it harder for them to commit vote fraud--which is the goal of the voter ID law. having to obtain fake IDs also makes it harder to commit widespread vote fraud as the person would have to have an ID for each vote cast. Previously, the same person could vote under many voter registrations with little to no chance of being detected.

You have always proved who you were, before you just did it by registering and paying taxes in your community. This law was useless. I mean there was no real large problem with voter fraud anyway. Now all people need to do is get a fake ID I bet that will be near impossible. Oh wait 18 year olds have been doing it for decades. All Walker did was waste my tax dollars implementing this law. And provide a new tax revenue for the state. Just another Republican tax and spend measure. They have done it for decades on the national level why not here now.

That was before partisan groups started doing their voter registration drives. Once a fictional person is on the voter registration list, anyone could vote under that fake registration. Before voter ID, there was no way of determining if the registered voter actually existed aside from taking the word of the partisan that filed the registration.

@Jay -

"All Walker did was waste my tax dollars implementing this law. And provide a new tax revenue for the state."

If both of these statements are accurate, then wouldn't it be a fiscal wash?

So what exactly are you complaining about in this regard?

I didn't have to prove I was myself - I could have very well voted as the lady down the street. I could have gone to Somers and voted as my mom. I could have driven to Milwaukee and voted as my sister. Yes, there will always be those who do things illegally to get around a law. This makes it more difficult and it makes it easier to prosecute if they are caught. I really don't see how this is generating revenue. The small amount of people who actually pay for their ID is completely insignificant when you look at the size of the budget.

Oh, and remember science class, though, everyone - you can't prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that fraud did not exist. Based on facts (cases of established fraud) and suppositions, you can make an estimate of how much was happening, but you can't prove that there wasn't any. <Oh, I think that made my head hurt. I should stop trying to make sense when I'm sick with the flu.> :)

who said you have to pay taxes to vote. thats knew to me. And if you don,t show your ID. you won't be able to vote to recall walker, oh well

Jay explain yourself on this "waste of money"
How much money did it cost to implement voter ID? Do you not care about fake votes, fraud or do you admit that it was easy to cheat before this?

Your side is now concerned about spending after putting us in the hole for 3.6 BILLION dollars. Creating emotional recalls for years costing tens of MILLIONS of dollars.

Price is a non factor, you just mad cause you got caught.

@James who pays the Tax? and secondly no I dont think it is a wash. This tax will hurt the middle class and poor the most. Every dollar they have to spend or are tricked into spending for this poll tax is one more dollar they wont or cant spend into the economy which in this state has been the worst in the nation the last 8 months since Walkers policies have started to take e
ffect.

@steve what fake votes? There was no major voter fraud issue that is kind of my point why spend even a dollar on this if there is no problem. Its like Walker just spent a bunch of money to fund a state commercial to tell us that soda is carbonated. Its not necessary was my point.

I agree robert the republicans used to be different, and better.

@robert & Jay -

Wow - I didn't know that you guys could effectively channel dead people and get their thoughts on present day situations. That's simply amazing!!!

You two must be like that John Edward 'Crossing Over' guy that was on tv years ago, right? Are either of you available for private sessions?

I'm also appalled at what the GOP has become. There are still too many Rinos in the party. Those were the days I voted for common sense Democrats like Senator William Proxmire. Rep Peter Barca wasn't as extreme radical liberal as he is now. I used to vote for Russ Feingold when he was more moderate. Now he wouldn't get my vote for dog catcher now. The Democrat has gone too far radical liberal.

@James I think I am entitled to my opinion on this

@Mau I think its the Republicans that have moved way too far right. I would say if anything the Democrats are less liberal than they were in the 70's and 80's. Fiengold a moderate??? How come he has been voted one of the most liberal senators every year he was in office. Maybe your values changed? Which there is nothing wrong with.

I seem to recall it was McCain and Feingold who compromised and came up with the campaign finance legislation. Then it was McCain and Obama who had a gentleman's agreement to abide by the compromise campaign finance legislation. And it was then Obama who broke this agreement and went hog wild with collecting campaign donations while McCain abided by the law.

@Keith -

Wow - thanks for setting me straight on that one!

And here I thought it was just one those infamous lib dem tricks similar in vein to how you guys always seem to monopolize the dead's vote.

Nothing new with that. Roll out the bus's, bbq and cigarettes.

Keith: Do seniors fish? They need an ID to obtain a license. Do they drive? They need a DL for that. Do they buy food with a check? They need an ID for that.
Free ID's are available at any DMV service center, they can even park right up front with a proper plate. The Disabled plate is available at the DMV after your Dr. signs the forms- but you need an ID to see the Dr. so they know who to bill.
Notice a pattern here?

@Keith -

And you're basing all of this on what exactly? The fact that only about 350 ID's have actually been requested and issued to date?

Yep - your predictions here are most definitely coming true all right!

When is your little song and dance routine coming to the main stage at Potawatomi?

BTW - It's our Democratic President that smokes, not our Republican Governor :-)

I thought it was Clinton who had the exploding cigar?
No wait- I got two stories mixed up- one was an exploding whale, and the other was a cigar given to Yasiir Arafat.

No your right our republican governor doesnt smoke he just cheats and gets kicked out of school.

Then you should shut the hell up and be happy if you really believe the lies you just typed.

@Jay, where did that story come from.

No one has answered my question on this "expense" How much is it? I keep asking wanting to know, help?

The bigger question is "How much is the whole recall fiasco costing?" If it hadn't been for the drum rolling anti-Walker recall crowd, this wouldn't have been such a big issue. Show us some numbers.

I've already brought that up mau. I can't seem to get an answer to the "waste of money" voter ID is costing. I've asked three times. I guess when compared to how much the dems are costing us in recalls our liberal friends just retreat from the keyboard.

@Steve, you are correct. I've noticed the same thing. Add to that the cost of the law suits that are going to come out of this.

Steve, the estimates were given at $5 - $6million for the changeover. Here is a link to an 5/19/2011 article which reports the cost at more than $6 million, plus a potential additional $1m cost to the UW system as their IDs did not meet the criteria of the law.

Perhaps at some point in time a voter ID bill might be appropriate for our state, but it was unjustified based on the number of actual incidents (15 in 2008 out of approximately 3,000,000 votes cast). We are in a recession and state workers have lost their jobs or had their salaries slashed. Not to mention the cuts to education, etc., etc. So I say again, I find this situation highly distasteful, from a moral and fiscal standpoint.

Another reason that I support the recall of Scott Walker is because I believe the cost to Wisconsin will be higher if he stays in office. For example, today's MSJ included an article about redistricting litigation. $400,000 of taxpayer money has spent to hire two private law firms to work on the maps (Michael Best, and Troupis), and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has already received $288,000 for the litigation, and the cap on its contract has been raised to $925,000. That's $1.3 million that could have been avoided had this administration chosen to redistrict appropriately, instead of moving 18 times as many voters as necessary (gerrymandering). Unacceptable!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-court-testimony-begins-in-state-redistricting-trial-jl4afqd-140181293.html

Sorry, here is the link to the Voter Id bill/cost: http://thirdcoastdigest.com/2011/05/voter-id-is-coming-to-wisconsin-but-what-else-is-in-the-bill/

If the Federal Government didn't require a census every 10 years, redistricting wouldn't be an issue. The estimated dollar amounts are from May 2011. I seem to recall the universities did not issue new cards, just added a sticker. If that cost over $1 million then the universities have a problem.

Anyway, isn't it the Walker recall group who said, recall at any cost, it's worth it. You can say the same about Voter ID.

So a little spent to ensure that might vote isn't nullified by some democrat cheater is a waste of money. But the MILLIONS spent on the recalls, and spent cleaning up the mess left by crybaby idiot protestors in madison is NOT a waste of money?

Idiot.

Oak Creek, spending $5-6 million because of 15 voter fraud incidents, or approximately $333,333 per incident is a wise expenditure in your mind? And that is 5-6 "million." The Capitol cleaning did not cost millions, it cost whatever it costs to mop floors, remove posters and tape residue. The recall effort I believe will save our state money in the long run. Example, didn't you see the article in the MJS about the $1.1 million that will be paid to 3 private law firms for services rendered in the gerrymandering project (in which 18 times as many voters as needed were switched around), and for litigation because of the lawsuits. That's all about opportunism and poor judgment. Our budget still isn't balanced, even with egregious cuts to K-12 education, Homestead and EIC, and removal of public employees off the tax rolls. Now Walker is taking nearly $26 million of the mortgage settlement to fix his $143 million budgeting error (lower tax revenue).

You may call me an "idiot" for not agreeing with you, and although your good opinion is important to me, no matter how many times I look at the numbers and the deeds, I cannot agree that Scott Walker has Wisconsin's best interests in mind.

I'm not sure that I'd really call it 'fear mongering', Don.

Partisan groups are engaging in the process of registering voters. Without any safeguards in place to verify voter identities, it would be very easy for such groups to get fake people on the registration list and cast votes in their names.

I think that a voter ID law is a reasonable step in preventing that type of fraud.

That is what I am saying Don, it was an unnecessary law. No matter what law you have there will be fraud, but in Wisconsin's case there was no "real" problem. So why did we need this political posturing and cost?

As I stated above, Jay: Since the kind of voter fraud that the ID law will prevent is nearly impossible to detect, you really can't claim that there really weren't any issues--there just weren't any issues that the authorities were aware of.

Make sure you include the Koch Bothers and their out of town voters and superpac donations to steal elections as well. If you want you can throw the unions money in there as well but if you put up the actual numbers I think you will see that the conservative side is swaying elections with cash much more than the unions. To me neither should be able to do so in this manner.

Thanks, Alfred, a did. You don't need to list names; A link or two would be fine. My conclusion came from the McIver Institute page, but nothing newer than 2010.

CD, easy or not, I'm guessing that there is not enough evidence to show enough either voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement to make all of thi$ worthwhile.

Where do you expect evidence to come from since this type of fraud is nearly impossible to detect?

In the whole scope of election spending, the costs of implementing voter ID really aren't all that high. Well worth it to ensure that we have fair elections.

CD,
I don't know. And what you seem to be arguing for is the prevention of something suspected but not proven or able to be proven. Yes?

Yes. Fraud that is easily accomplished, along with partisans controlling voter registrations is plenty of justification for implementing an easy solution like voter ID requirements.

It's not just groups 'with a strong political commitment'. They are groups that have strong party affiliations. Don't you think that it is reasonable to have a system that can verify the actions of those partisan groups and make sure that the person casting the vote is actually the person registered to vote?

The $5-6 million estimates are cheaper than a single statewide election. Certainly if we can justify the endless rounds of recalls we have been seeing recently, we can justify a few million to guarantee fair elections. Personally, I don't even understand why it would cost millions to implement the program--haven't there been only 350 or so free (government paid) IDs issued so far? The small number of free IDs given also goes to show that people really aren't being disenfranchised by the ID requirement.

Not exactly 'unheard of in modern history'. How many votes determined the 2000 presidential election in Florida? I seem to recall it being around the 500 mark. We are a pretty evenly divided state, it's not hard to imagine seeing something similar happening here.

CD, ok, ok, once. And I can see your point about our being an evenly divided state =and for that reason= insuring a fair and proper election is important. And =for the same reason= I'd add that it is important that we do not disenfranchise persons unnecessarily.
And I think that's part of the problem with this issue--honest elections and complete enfranchisement are both important. And much of what we think about each of these is very speculative. The word "moot" seems to apply here. Can we agree to disagree?
Thanks for hanging in there w/me in this dialogue. :-)