Exactly. Chefguy’s point is well taken – and I’m not happy about the money flowing on both sides – but the fifty- and million-dollar handouts from Musk are qualitatively distinct, and disgusting. Not to mention pathetic and trashy, in an awful-70s-game-show kind of way.
Apparently, I am not the only one who finds it strange that a liberal won a state Supreme Court election in the same election where “you must show ID to vote” was put into the state’s Constitution, which, among other things, makes it impossible for said court to rule that (a) an ID requirement violates the state’s Constitution, and (b) since it’s strictly a state matter, the U.S. Supreme Court has no say in it.
That is odd, but can be explained by how Wisconsin voters have become used to this being the law for a while now, so they think “might as well lock it in.”
(I remember debating this on the SDMB – me, elucidator, and others on the “no ID” side, Liberal and others on the “yes ID” side – back around 2013).
It’s not that hard to understand. Plenty of people see no conflict between having a liberal Supreme Court, and requiring ID to vote. There are a lot of people who are generally liberal, but think requiring ID to vote is a good idea. As they say, people contain multitudes.
But the court could now use this to argue that putting burdensome obstacles in the way of getting an ID is a violation of the state constitution.
Ejected? Did you meant to say “elected”?
Ha! Yee. Haven’t slept much.
I mean “yes”! (I did warn you 
).
I didn’t find it that strange. As said, in Wisconsin, a photo ID is already required to vote, so to a lot of ‘common sense’ voters, this is like walking into the voting booth and seeing the question “Should Wisconsin law require people to stop at red lights?”. While your first question, IMO, should be ‘I thought you already had to, why are they asking me this?’, for most people it’s ‘I can’t think of a reason why not’. This is especially the case if it’s your first time seeing, or at least giving any thought to, that question.
I remember a few election cycles ago I learned that you really have to dig into these (IMO) deliberately confusingly worded referendum questions. Luckily, I’ve found that the local ACLU and Wisconsin Public Radio websites usually do a good job of, not just explaining them, but explaining their ramifications (which is usually the actual intent) of them. For example, they might have explained that the question is about showing your ID to vote, but the intent is to use the newly formed law to disenfranchise people.
At least that’s the case for me. When it comes to politics, I don’t understand enough about all the moving parts to think that many steps ahead. The difference being that I know I don’t know and I ‘do my own research’. There’s a lot of steps between “The WI constitution requiring a photo ID to vote” and “that group of people have the legal right, but not the ability, to vote” and it’s not something I would’ve put together on my own.
FWIW, I’m pretty sure I first learned the voter ID = preventing minority groups from voting connection on this board.
Musk’s candidate lost by 2% more than the other GOP (ish) state wide candidate. His support certainly didn’t help and it appears to have hurt.
This fight has been well and truly lost. It’s an 80-20 issue. A substantial majority of Democrats support voter ID. It’s over.
Also, the changes in the two parties’ coalitions have probably mitigated any real effects it would have on election results. We might even be at the point where strict voter ID laws hurt Republicans. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, Republicans should get to vote too, but the whole fight about it is at least a decade out of date.
Requiring identification to vote is never the problem in itself. These voter ID laws are Republicans leveraging the actual problem for political gain. The actual problem is that a large number of people don’t have identification.
Lack of identification is a major problem, even ignoring the voting issue. Our society expects people to have identification in many ways; it’s very inexcusable that the state doesn’t make identification available to everyone. Available meaning no cost, weekend registration, difficult to spoof, etc.
To bring it back to this topic:
This is what needs to happen. And not just in Wisconsin.
Thank goodness you were wrong.
Minor qualification (I am also glad Musk’s finger didn’t tip the scales to the other candidate) - Musk’s stunts of offering money for votes, no matter how framed, or deniable, or ineffective ISN’T going to end well going forward. Yes, we’re all tired about the line “every accusation is a confession” but considering how heavily Trump and his ilk say that THEY (Soros normally) are paying for votes/protests/etc. it’s likely a trend that will be further utilized and normalized. And it further destroys our faith in the electoral system. All of which means it absolute isn’t “going to end well.”
I wonder how many took Musk’s money and then voted the other way.
So far, at least, nobody’s watching you in the voting booth.
My wife met one guy at a recent demonstration who claimed he did just that. More power to him.
Thing is, I’m not sure it can happen, without an amendment like this. Let’s say that you have a state where the constitution says that everyone has the right to vote (but nothing else on the topic of IDs). And then you have a law in that state that says that everyone needs ID to vote. And then you also have a law that says that there will only be one place in each county where you can get an ID. Neither one of those laws, by itself, violates the constitution. The combination of both together effectively does, but how do you challenge that?
I don’t know how/if it holds up in court, but I thought I’d heard somewhere that requiring an ID, especially when it’s difficult to get, can be considered a poll tax.
According to a Harvard Law report, getting documentation, possible travel, and waiting time (at a DMV, for example) are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters.[110] The author of the study notes that the costs associated with obtaining the card far exceeds the $1.50 poll tax (equivalent to $11.00 in 2023[111]) outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.[112]
Costs are also borne by get out the vote nonprofits organizations and volunteers who must spend more time and money trying to help people to get and updated ID in order to be able to register to vote.[113]
I didn’t read it, but that footnote #112 links to a 60+ page report called “The High Cost of Free Voter ID Cards”.