In the News

 

 

 

MILWAUKEE (WITI) — Reaction is pouring in after Thursday night’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which put Wisconsin’s voter ID law on hold. The law was supposed to go into effect for the election on November 4th. But the court has stopped it until justices can hear the entire case — and decide whether the law is constitutional.

 

The move right now puts a temporary hold on the law taking effect. The immediate impact will be felt November 4th — with no voter IDs required. If the court does not rule, the stay could be in effect through the spring election as well.

 

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele celebrates the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday upholding same-sex marriage in Wisconsin — and then Friday’s decision on voter ID. He personally funded the legal effort for both through the ACLU to the tune of about $30,000 in the past year-and-a-half.

 

“The fight will continue — they’ve done some great work; the ACLU has on this issue. And I expect they’ll continue to do that. I’ll be there to continually support them in the future,” said Abele.

 

Up the road in Saukville, Republican State Lawmaker Duey Stroebel is an avid supporter of voter ID.

 

“Yes, disappointed — because I believe voter ID is going to be good for the integrity of our elections — and I believe it is common sense reform,” said Stroebel.

 

Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore took 90-year-old activist Vel Phillips to the Division of Motor Vehicles to demonstrate how getting an ID can be difficult for the elderly. Phillips didn’t remember her social security number and had to call her son, but eventually got her ID.

 

Gov. Scott Walker took time from a ground breaking in Stevens Point to comment on the voter ID issue.

 

“I think ultimately it will be upheld. It makes it easy to vote in the State of Wisconsin and harder to cheat. And we still think protecting the integrity of each and every vote incredibly important,” said Gov. Walker.

 

The voter ID law that the governor signed became Wisconsin law about three years ago. It was used already in a primary in 2012. But it’s been back and forth in the courts ever since.