Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well this sucks. (Original Post) boonecreek Tuesday OP
This could be a big problem in the future. yourout Tuesday #1
People just don't think things through. boonecreek Tuesday #2
Different laws EdmondDantes_ Tuesday #4
Thanks for the clarification. With Republicans I always expect the worst yourout Tuesday #5
It is already the law. Demsrule86 Tuesday #3

yourout

(8,344 posts)
1. This could be a big problem in the future.
Tue Apr 1, 2025, 10:25 PM
Tuesday

It's going to make it very difficult for women to vote if they've changed their name at all.

boonecreek

(824 posts)
2. People just don't think things through.
Tue Apr 1, 2025, 10:35 PM
Tuesday

On the other hand, I never saw 1 anti question 1 ad.

EdmondDantes_

(371 posts)
4. Different laws
Tue Apr 1, 2025, 10:44 PM
Tuesday

This is you have to present a photo ID and has been in effect since 2011. It has nothing to do with the name has to match your birth certificate.

Here's the language of the amendment:

“Section 1m of article III of the constitution is created to read:

[Article III] Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this subsection.

(2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law.”

https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/2025/explainer-the-proposed-voter-id-constitutional-amendment-on-wisconsins-april-ballot/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Well this sucks.