Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law

The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to uphold the Voter ID Bill as Constitutional. 

The law is still on hold as it is being worked through the Federal Courts as well.  However the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted in their ruling a United States Supreme Court ruling that also upholds the Law. 

There were two cases that were before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  The first was a challenge by the NAACP:

"We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to prove Act 23 unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. In League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 97, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __, also released today, we concluded that requiring an elector to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification in order to vote is not an additional elector qualification. Id.,  In the present case, we conclude that the burdens of time and inconvenience associated with obtaining Act 23-acceptable photo identification are not undue burdens on the right to vote and do not render the law invalid. 

 

We conclude, as did the United Stated Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), that "the inconvenience of making a trip to [a state motor vehicle office], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote."

 The Second was by the League of Women Voters against the Legislature overstepping their authority in requiring voter ID:

We conclude that the legislature did not exceed its authority under Article III of the Wisconsin Constitution when it required electors to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification. Since 1859, we have held that "it is clearly within [the legislature's] province to require any person offering to vote[] to furnish such proof as it deems requisite[] that he is a qualif[i]ed elector." Cothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. 254 (*279), 258 (*283-84) (1859). Requiring a potential voter to identify himself or herself as a qualified elector through the use of Act 23-acceptable photo identification does not impose an elector qualification in addition to those set out in Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. 

 

We also conclude that the requirement to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification comes within the legislature's authority to enact laws providing for the registration of electors under Article III, Section 2 because Act 23-acceptable photo identification is the mode by which election officials verify that a potential voter is the elector listed on the registration list. 

 

Finally, we conclude that plaintiff's facial challenge fails because Act 23's requirement to present photo identification is a reasonable regulation that could improve and modernize election procedures, safeguard voter confidence in the outcome of elections and deter voter fraud. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.