New federal ruling on voter ID resonates in North Carolina

New federal ruling on voter ID resonates in North Carolina

April 29
BY FRANCO ORDOÑEZ
McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Voter ID laws in North Carolina, Texas and other states appear more vulnerable to legal challenges after a federal judge struck down a Wisconsin law that required voters show a state issued photo ID at the polls.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled the Wisconsin law places an unfair burden on poor and minority voters. The ruling could encourge opponents in North Carolina and other states to make similar challenges.

North Carolina and dozens more states require voters to show some form of identification when voting, according to The Associated Press. Legislation is being proposed in many others. The laws’ opponents, including many Democrats, argue the Republican-supported laws are an effort to suppress minority voters.

Republicans who support the laws argue requiring a photo ID protects against voter fraud.

The North Carolina ID law was signed in August, two months after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, many of them in the South, to seek federal approval before changing voter laws.

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the Tarheel state the following month claiming North Carolina legislators “intentionally” discriminated against minorities. McCrory, who said the law protects against fraud, has said the lawsuit is “without merit.” He cited a video showing the president presenting an ID card to vote in Chicago.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/29...#storylink=cpy

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f9/federal-judg...id-law-301858/

I believe FRANCO ORDOÑEZ is upset that illegal aliens may be prevented from voting in elections felonious here in NC by voter ID laws.

W

Another progressive activist judge. It seems that judges no longer interpret the law, they activate from the bench. I wonder how long it took them to make sure that this judge heard their case. This should be appealed immediately. JMO

Lynn S. Adelman (born October 1, 1939) is a United States federal judge.

Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Adelman received an A.B. from Princeton University in 1961 and an LL.B. from Columbia Law School in 1965. He was a research assistant at Columbia from 1965 to 1966, and a law clerk to attorney Richard H. Kuh in 1966. He was a trial attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Wisconsin from 1967 to 1968, and then entered private practice in Milwaukee in 1968.

Adelman ran for Congress unsuccessfully three times, in 1974 in the general election, and in primaries in 1982 and in 1984 in a special election.^[1]

He was a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Senate from 1977 to 1997.^[2]

On September 8, 1997, Adelman was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin vacated by Thomas J. Curran. Adelman was confirmed by the United States Senateon November 13, 1997, and received his commission on December 23, 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_S._Adelman

He makes his own rules. This is an example.
Judge explains child porn sentence

By Marie Rohde, Journal Sentinel, Inc
March 17, 2009
http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007134_Adelman.jpg

Federal sentencing guidelines for some child pornography offenses are seriously flawed and they are "entitled to little respect," said U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman.
Adelman's came in a 16-page memorandum explaining what prosecutors viewed as a light sentence he imposed last month in the case of Michael Phinney, a former Shorewood village trustee. Adelman sentenced Phinney to six months in prison to be followed by 10 years extended supervision, a fraction of the 37 to 46 months recommended by Kelly B. Watzka, the federal prosecutor who cited the federal guidelines.
Phinney's attorney, Dennis Coffey, had argued that the guidelines "had been the subject of much criticism by scholars and judges because it is not based on any empirical data or institutional analysis."
Adelman wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued recent decisions that sentencing guidelines are a starting point but that "the district judge may not presume that the guideline sentence is the correct one."
Adelman outlined a history of sentencing guidelines for child pornography. He noted that when guidelines were established in 1987, simple possession of child pornography was not a federal crime and the guidelines applied only to offenses of "transporting, receiving and trafficking" child pornography.
In 1991, Congress increased the base sentence and added additional time for the number of items possessed and other factors.

Adelman wrote that the sentencing commission opposed the changes and that the Congressional action was based on an erroneous perception that penalties had been lessened for child pornography crimes.
Congress increased the penalty guidelines in 1995 and 2003 despite the sentencing commissions objections, Adelman said.
"Not only is this guideline not based on commission study or expertise, it is directly contrary to the commission's original studied approach and to several of its subsequent recommendations and reports," Adelman wrote. "Accordingly, I concluded that the range under the 2008 guideline was worthy of little respect or deference."
Phinney was in his office at a company he co-owned when the human resources director saw him looking at images of naked boys or men on his computer. She told the other owner of the company and the two entered Phinney's office after he left and found the images on the computer. The other owner contacted the FBI. A search of the computer found 28 sexually explicit images of children, two identified by through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
"The crime was serious, no doubt," Adelman wrote. "Real children are harmed to create this material and that harm is perpetuated each time the images are viewed."
But what is the appropriate sentence in this case?
Adelman said Phinney, 58, did not produce, distribute, share the images or show them to a child, nor did he profit from the images. He also took into account Phinney's work history and his remorse. He noted that Phinney had serious health problems and had long been treated for depression and had gone for treatment with a therapist who deals with sex offenders.
Adelman noted that the 10 years of post-prison supervision was above the five-year minimum but less than the lifelong maximum. He also placed a number of requirements on Phinney: required mental health assessment and treatment; a prohibition on possessing sexually explicit material; registration as a sex offender; a requirement that he reveal all of his financial information and that he perform 10 hours of community service for each year he is under supervision.



Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/4...#ixzz30Jl4pTLS
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...29419357_n.jpg