TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE "NO"
[we have received the following submission and are pleased to publish it...]
TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE "NO"
The civil union and gay-marriage ban is wrong for Wisconsin
by Lisa Kaiser
of the Shepherd-Express.com
On Nov. 7, Wisconsin voters have a chance to make history and fight discrimination at the same time. That's when voters will face the following:
QUESTION 1: "Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"
Voting "yes" means that the Wisconsin Constitution will include a ban on same-sex marriages and the legal recognition of relationships that are similar to marriage -that includes civil unions and domestic partnerships, two forms of relationships that many heterosexual people create.
Voting "no" means that the constitution will not include discrimination. It means that everything will stay the same. It means that gays and lesbians will not be able to get married in Wisconsin, which is the current law. It means that civil unions and domestic partnerships will continue to be options for couples. And it means that Wisconsin would be the first state to reject a constitutional ban on civil unions and same-sex marriages at the ballot box.
Here are 10 reasons why you should vote "no" on Nov. 7.
10. If you vote "no," you'll be in good company. Opponents of the referendum come from across the political spectrum and from every county in the state. On the Republican side you have heavyweights such as former Republican Gov. Lee S. Dreyfus. Even conservative radio talker Charlie Sykes has questioned whether the ban is wise, and indicated that Republican legislators overreached by including civil unions and domestic partnerships in the broadly worded amendment.
Fair-minded politicians such as Sen. Russ Feingold, Gov. Jim Doyle, Mayor Tom Barrett, attorney general candidate Kathleen Falk and a host of others don't want the amendment to be part of our constitution.
The business community has spoken out against it, since the amendment would tarnish Wisconsin's image as a tolerant place in which to work and grow a business. Labor unions are concerned about workers potentially losing benefits at their jobs. Organizations that advocate for health care, domestic-violence victims, seniors and others also oppose the amendment.
Referendum opponents also include African-American leaders such as Vel Phillips; Congresswoman Gwen Moore; state Sen. Lena Taylor; and state Reps. Tamara Grigsby, Spencer Coggs, Jason Fields, Leon Young, Robert Turner and Barbara Toles.
9. The amendment could affect you, even if you are straight. Gay and lesbian couples are the ones most directly affected by the ban. If a majority of voters say "no" to the amendment, then these couples lose nothing. (They would gain nothing, legally, either.) But if a majority votes "yes," then gay and lesbians in the state will have their treatment as second-class citizens actually imbedded in the 158-year-old Wisconsin Constitution.
But if you're straight, you could also be affected. In fact, you would be affected more, since you would be losing rights you currently enjoy. Because the amendment would also ban the legal recognition of relationships that are similar to marriage-domestic partnerships and civil unions-straight people in solid relationships who are not married are at risk of losing some legal protections. Since the effect of this ban on civil unions is unclear, nobody is sure if health care benefits, custody issues, hospital visitation rights and other protections would be affected.
What's more, heterosexuals who vote "yes" would also have to answer tough questions about why they support discrimination. For example, how would you feel if your child were gay and therefore wouldn't be seen as equal in the eyes of the law? What if the company you work for decided to terminate domestic-partnership benefits, for fear of breaking the law or being dragged into a costly court case? What if your colleague or favorite employee decided to leave the state so that she and her partner could have a better life elsewhere?
8. Heterosexual marriages aren't threatened by gay relationships. Those who support the ban on civil unions and same-sex marriage say that they're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage. The amendment has been dubbed the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" and the federal version, which President Bush supported and Congress shot down, was called the "Marriage Protection Amendment," implying that heterosexual marriages are threatened by gay relationships.
But how vulnerable is the institution of marriage? Not one heterosexual marriage has ended because gay people have been allowed to marry in some countries. Not one country has run out of marriage licenses, and not one clergy member or justice of the peace has refused to marry a straight couple because gay couples could marry.
Aren't marriages put under strain by other factors? Just last week, the Milwaukee Archdiocese Priest Alliance issued a statement asking that legislators look at real threats to the family-threats such as poverty, a weak job market, lack of secure pensions and health-care benefits and the commercialization of sex. These Catholic priests wrote: "The amendment may be construed to deny rights and services, including health care, not only to those in civil unions but many other citizens of Wisconsin as well, irrespective of their marital status. Indeed, our pastoral experience tells us that the prospect of gay unions is not a chief cause of marital instability and family dissolution. Marriage and family are more at risk from more immediate challenges-problems that can and should be addressed by candidates."
Think about it another way: voting "no" to not discriminate against gay and unmarried people can actually strengthen our society. As marriage-equality advocate Evan Wolfson said in a Shepherd interview last fall, "Time and time again opponents have prophesized that terrible things would happen, when in fact our nation has become better when we've widened the circle of equality."
7. Wisconsin voters are being manipulated by politicians who are only looking out for themselves. Sadly, the Republican legislators who have pushed for this amendment have done so with one eye on their own political fortunes. They hoped to increase the turnout of conservative Christians who usually vote Republican-the well-being of large portions of our state's residents be damned. Cynically, they timed the amendment so that it would be put on the ballot this November, when they hope that large numbers of conservative Christian voters will vote "yes" on the amendment and help Republicans maintain control in Madison.
But evidence is mounting that confirms what we already knew: this strategy is manipulative and dishonest and shortchanges Christian voters. As recounted in Tempting Faith, a new book about the Bush administration's use and abuse of the Christian right, these conservative Republican strategists and politicians have no respect for churchgoers. As author David Kuo writes in the book, "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control, benefits, custody issues, ' and just plain 'goofy.'"
How's that for loyalty?
6. You can vote "no" and still be a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, agnostic or atheist. Which faith groups have declared that discrimination does not belong in the Wisconsin Constitution? Protestants, Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, Quakers, Christians, Catholics, Unitarians and others stand in unity against the ban.
5. A "no" vote reaffirms the separation of church and state. When a couple marries, they are entering into a civil contract that is recognized by the government. A couple can be married in a religious ceremony, but it isn't mandatory.
A "no" vote does not mean that every church, temple or mosque will be forced to marry same-sex couples. A "no" vote means that current law, which does not allow for same-sex marriage, will stand. It also means that some conservative Christians' definition of marriage will not become a part of our constitution.
This is a very different message than the one delivered by amendment supporters. They produced a DVD explaining their position and distributed 4,000 copies to churches throughout the state. But the DVD is full of inaccuracies and blurs the line between church and state. As the narrator explains in the DVD, "The institution of marriage is God's creation, designed for mankind's good and God's glory. Marriage and the family are not the creation of the state or even the church. Therefore, marriage or the family cannot be redefined by the government or the church."
But ask yourself this: Why must one Christian viewpoint become the law of the land?
4. The amendment could have dangerous, unintended consequences. The amendment isn't just about banning same-sex marriages in the state. According to the second sentence of the amendment, it would ban relationships that are "similar" to marriage. This includes civil unions and domestic partnerships-relationships that many heterosexual couples participate in. A "no" vote would allow them to stay in place, without being threatened by the law.
This second sentence has troubled many and similar bans have caused problems in other states. For example, in Ohio, domestic-violence protections have become more vulnerable. That's why the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes the ban. passed, the amendment could have a devastating effect on unmarried heterosexual and same-sex victims of domestic violence, including persons currently or formerly residing together, persons with a child in common, people in dating relationships and those who have caretakers and guardians who engage in abuse," the coalition argued.
In addition, seniors who are in stable, loving relationships - but aren't married to their partner - are worried that they will be negatively impacted by the ban. As the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups explained when they decided to oppose the amendment, "Many formerly married elders choose not to remarry but instead enter into legal relationships with their new partners that are substantially similar to marriage. Some have religious marriage ceremonies performed but do not complete marriage licenses. Couples consider themselves married but are not in fact married. The second sentence of the proposed amendment will lead to uncertainty and litigation over whether these relationships - and the legal documents such as deeds, Powers of Attorneys, property agreements, etc. that accompany these relationships - are valid."
3. Do they think we're stupid? Wisconsin law has already defined marriage as a relationship between a "husband" and "wife."
But amendment supporters think we don't understand those terms. They want to redefine marriage so that it's between one "man" and one "woman." Without this change, amendment backers argue, just about anyone could get married-one man and two women, one woman and two men, a couple of men and a handful of women, and so on and so on. These amendment supporters would even have you believe that marriage between a man and an animal could become legal if we don't change the constitution and redefine marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Do they really believe Wisconsin voters are that dumb?
Voting "no" means that the law will stand-legal marriages in the state will continue to be made between a husband and a wife.
2. Momentum is on the side of tolerance. Two years ago, when Republicans introduced gay-marriage amendments around the country, they passed overwhelmingly in 11 states. Back then, people weren't quite sure what "gay marriage" was all about, and amendment supporters made it sound scary, like The End Was Near.
But support for banning same-sex marriage has waned as people learn that allowing gay and lesbians to share the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals isn't so threatening. Recent polls in Wisconsin show that voters are fairly evenly divided between those who support and oppose banning civil unions and same-sex marriages.
But look closer at those figures and you'll realize where the momentum is - with the future generations. According to surveys, younger voters are less likely to want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Younger people have gay friends, co-workers and relatives who are open and honest about their lives-and it's no big deal. Younger people understand that there's nothing wrong with being gay, while discriminating against gays and lesbians is not acceptable.
What would happen if the amendment passes and our constitution includes discrimination? As younger generations become leaders and shape our political landscape and communities, they'll have to undo the mistakes of today's older voters who want to discriminate against a healthy minority of our society. Voting "no" means that discrimination will not be part of Wisconsin's future.
1. Voting "no" will make history. In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state in the country to pass a law that made discrimination against gays and lesbians illegal. Our state has clearly benefited from that vote on tolerance and fairness, and other states and countries have followed our lead.
Now, Wisconsin voters have a similar challenge: to rise above petty politics and make our voices heard.
You can make history on Nov. 7 by voting to stop the ban on civil unions and same-sex marriages. No other state has made this declaration, but Wisconsin voters have the opportunity to stop discrimination. A "no" vote will make history-and make Wisconsin a better state.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.shepherd-express.com/1pubicindex.lasso?-token.editorialreferral=175471.113121.
Here is a link to "20 Effects of the Civil Unions and Marriage Ban" presented by A Fair Wisconsin: http://www.fairwisconsin.com/20/index.html
And here's everything you need to know for this Tuesday, November 7 to vote "NO" on the amendment. Please feel free to copy & paste and send the following to your friends, family, and coworkers in Wisconsin...
What will I see on the ballot?
"Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"
How do I vote if I don't want this in our constitution?
Vote "No." Learn more about what the amendment means and why you should vote "No" here:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/ban
Where do I vote?
Find your polling place: http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote/#polling
What time are the polls open?
In most places, you can vote between 7am-8pm on Tuesday, November 7. You can also vote early -- which you should do if you're volunteering with us on Election Day. Learn how to vote early:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote#early
What do I need to bring if I voted in the last election?
As long as you haven't moved out of your voting ward, you don't need to bring a thing.
I've never voted in Wisconsin. What do I need to know?
To vote you must live in Wisconsin for at least ten days before Election Day. Show up at your polling place on November 7 with a Wisconsin drivers license (if you don't have one, you can use a Wisconsin state ID or your social security number). You must also bring proof of residence (see next question). Get more info:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote
What should I bring for proof of residence?
A valid Wisconsin state driver's license is best, but you can also use another state-issued identification, a residential lease, a utility bill, a bank statement, or a paycheck. For more info visit:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote#proof
What if I moved since I last voted?
If you moved out of the ward that you last voted, you must register to vote in your current ward. Learn what you need to register here:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote/#register
Anything else I need to know?
For questions about the civil unions and marriage ban visit:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com
If you have questions about voting, call the State Election Board at 608-266-8005 or visit http://elections.state.wi.us
TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE "NO"
The civil union and gay-marriage ban is wrong for Wisconsin
by Lisa Kaiser
of the Shepherd-Express.com
On Nov. 7, Wisconsin voters have a chance to make history and fight discrimination at the same time. That's when voters will face the following:
QUESTION 1: "Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"
Voting "yes" means that the Wisconsin Constitution will include a ban on same-sex marriages and the legal recognition of relationships that are similar to marriage -that includes civil unions and domestic partnerships, two forms of relationships that many heterosexual people create.
Voting "no" means that the constitution will not include discrimination. It means that everything will stay the same. It means that gays and lesbians will not be able to get married in Wisconsin, which is the current law. It means that civil unions and domestic partnerships will continue to be options for couples. And it means that Wisconsin would be the first state to reject a constitutional ban on civil unions and same-sex marriages at the ballot box.
Here are 10 reasons why you should vote "no" on Nov. 7.
10. If you vote "no," you'll be in good company. Opponents of the referendum come from across the political spectrum and from every county in the state. On the Republican side you have heavyweights such as former Republican Gov. Lee S. Dreyfus. Even conservative radio talker Charlie Sykes has questioned whether the ban is wise, and indicated that Republican legislators overreached by including civil unions and domestic partnerships in the broadly worded amendment.
Fair-minded politicians such as Sen. Russ Feingold, Gov. Jim Doyle, Mayor Tom Barrett, attorney general candidate Kathleen Falk and a host of others don't want the amendment to be part of our constitution.
The business community has spoken out against it, since the amendment would tarnish Wisconsin's image as a tolerant place in which to work and grow a business. Labor unions are concerned about workers potentially losing benefits at their jobs. Organizations that advocate for health care, domestic-violence victims, seniors and others also oppose the amendment.
Referendum opponents also include African-American leaders such as Vel Phillips; Congresswoman Gwen Moore; state Sen. Lena Taylor; and state Reps. Tamara Grigsby, Spencer Coggs, Jason Fields, Leon Young, Robert Turner and Barbara Toles.
9. The amendment could affect you, even if you are straight. Gay and lesbian couples are the ones most directly affected by the ban. If a majority of voters say "no" to the amendment, then these couples lose nothing. (They would gain nothing, legally, either.) But if a majority votes "yes," then gay and lesbians in the state will have their treatment as second-class citizens actually imbedded in the 158-year-old Wisconsin Constitution.
But if you're straight, you could also be affected. In fact, you would be affected more, since you would be losing rights you currently enjoy. Because the amendment would also ban the legal recognition of relationships that are similar to marriage-domestic partnerships and civil unions-straight people in solid relationships who are not married are at risk of losing some legal protections. Since the effect of this ban on civil unions is unclear, nobody is sure if health care benefits, custody issues, hospital visitation rights and other protections would be affected.
What's more, heterosexuals who vote "yes" would also have to answer tough questions about why they support discrimination. For example, how would you feel if your child were gay and therefore wouldn't be seen as equal in the eyes of the law? What if the company you work for decided to terminate domestic-partnership benefits, for fear of breaking the law or being dragged into a costly court case? What if your colleague or favorite employee decided to leave the state so that she and her partner could have a better life elsewhere?
8. Heterosexual marriages aren't threatened by gay relationships. Those who support the ban on civil unions and same-sex marriage say that they're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage. The amendment has been dubbed the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" and the federal version, which President Bush supported and Congress shot down, was called the "Marriage Protection Amendment," implying that heterosexual marriages are threatened by gay relationships.
But how vulnerable is the institution of marriage? Not one heterosexual marriage has ended because gay people have been allowed to marry in some countries. Not one country has run out of marriage licenses, and not one clergy member or justice of the peace has refused to marry a straight couple because gay couples could marry.
Aren't marriages put under strain by other factors? Just last week, the Milwaukee Archdiocese Priest Alliance issued a statement asking that legislators look at real threats to the family-threats such as poverty, a weak job market, lack of secure pensions and health-care benefits and the commercialization of sex. These Catholic priests wrote: "The amendment may be construed to deny rights and services, including health care, not only to those in civil unions but many other citizens of Wisconsin as well, irrespective of their marital status. Indeed, our pastoral experience tells us that the prospect of gay unions is not a chief cause of marital instability and family dissolution. Marriage and family are more at risk from more immediate challenges-problems that can and should be addressed by candidates."
Think about it another way: voting "no" to not discriminate against gay and unmarried people can actually strengthen our society. As marriage-equality advocate Evan Wolfson said in a Shepherd interview last fall, "Time and time again opponents have prophesized that terrible things would happen, when in fact our nation has become better when we've widened the circle of equality."
7. Wisconsin voters are being manipulated by politicians who are only looking out for themselves. Sadly, the Republican legislators who have pushed for this amendment have done so with one eye on their own political fortunes. They hoped to increase the turnout of conservative Christians who usually vote Republican-the well-being of large portions of our state's residents be damned. Cynically, they timed the amendment so that it would be put on the ballot this November, when they hope that large numbers of conservative Christian voters will vote "yes" on the amendment and help Republicans maintain control in Madison.
But evidence is mounting that confirms what we already knew: this strategy is manipulative and dishonest and shortchanges Christian voters. As recounted in Tempting Faith, a new book about the Bush administration's use and abuse of the Christian right, these conservative Republican strategists and politicians have no respect for churchgoers. As author David Kuo writes in the book, "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control, benefits, custody issues, ' and just plain 'goofy.'"
How's that for loyalty?
6. You can vote "no" and still be a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, agnostic or atheist. Which faith groups have declared that discrimination does not belong in the Wisconsin Constitution? Protestants, Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, Quakers, Christians, Catholics, Unitarians and others stand in unity against the ban.
5. A "no" vote reaffirms the separation of church and state. When a couple marries, they are entering into a civil contract that is recognized by the government. A couple can be married in a religious ceremony, but it isn't mandatory.
A "no" vote does not mean that every church, temple or mosque will be forced to marry same-sex couples. A "no" vote means that current law, which does not allow for same-sex marriage, will stand. It also means that some conservative Christians' definition of marriage will not become a part of our constitution.
This is a very different message than the one delivered by amendment supporters. They produced a DVD explaining their position and distributed 4,000 copies to churches throughout the state. But the DVD is full of inaccuracies and blurs the line between church and state. As the narrator explains in the DVD, "The institution of marriage is God's creation, designed for mankind's good and God's glory. Marriage and the family are not the creation of the state or even the church. Therefore, marriage or the family cannot be redefined by the government or the church."
But ask yourself this: Why must one Christian viewpoint become the law of the land?
4. The amendment could have dangerous, unintended consequences. The amendment isn't just about banning same-sex marriages in the state. According to the second sentence of the amendment, it would ban relationships that are "similar" to marriage. This includes civil unions and domestic partnerships-relationships that many heterosexual couples participate in. A "no" vote would allow them to stay in place, without being threatened by the law.
This second sentence has troubled many and similar bans have caused problems in other states. For example, in Ohio, domestic-violence protections have become more vulnerable. That's why the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes the ban. passed, the amendment could have a devastating effect on unmarried heterosexual and same-sex victims of domestic violence, including persons currently or formerly residing together, persons with a child in common, people in dating relationships and those who have caretakers and guardians who engage in abuse," the coalition argued.
In addition, seniors who are in stable, loving relationships - but aren't married to their partner - are worried that they will be negatively impacted by the ban. As the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups explained when they decided to oppose the amendment, "Many formerly married elders choose not to remarry but instead enter into legal relationships with their new partners that are substantially similar to marriage. Some have religious marriage ceremonies performed but do not complete marriage licenses. Couples consider themselves married but are not in fact married. The second sentence of the proposed amendment will lead to uncertainty and litigation over whether these relationships - and the legal documents such as deeds, Powers of Attorneys, property agreements, etc. that accompany these relationships - are valid."
3. Do they think we're stupid? Wisconsin law has already defined marriage as a relationship between a "husband" and "wife."
But amendment supporters think we don't understand those terms. They want to redefine marriage so that it's between one "man" and one "woman." Without this change, amendment backers argue, just about anyone could get married-one man and two women, one woman and two men, a couple of men and a handful of women, and so on and so on. These amendment supporters would even have you believe that marriage between a man and an animal could become legal if we don't change the constitution and redefine marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Do they really believe Wisconsin voters are that dumb?
Voting "no" means that the law will stand-legal marriages in the state will continue to be made between a husband and a wife.
2. Momentum is on the side of tolerance. Two years ago, when Republicans introduced gay-marriage amendments around the country, they passed overwhelmingly in 11 states. Back then, people weren't quite sure what "gay marriage" was all about, and amendment supporters made it sound scary, like The End Was Near.
But support for banning same-sex marriage has waned as people learn that allowing gay and lesbians to share the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals isn't so threatening. Recent polls in Wisconsin show that voters are fairly evenly divided between those who support and oppose banning civil unions and same-sex marriages.
But look closer at those figures and you'll realize where the momentum is - with the future generations. According to surveys, younger voters are less likely to want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Younger people have gay friends, co-workers and relatives who are open and honest about their lives-and it's no big deal. Younger people understand that there's nothing wrong with being gay, while discriminating against gays and lesbians is not acceptable.
What would happen if the amendment passes and our constitution includes discrimination? As younger generations become leaders and shape our political landscape and communities, they'll have to undo the mistakes of today's older voters who want to discriminate against a healthy minority of our society. Voting "no" means that discrimination will not be part of Wisconsin's future.
1. Voting "no" will make history. In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state in the country to pass a law that made discrimination against gays and lesbians illegal. Our state has clearly benefited from that vote on tolerance and fairness, and other states and countries have followed our lead.
Now, Wisconsin voters have a similar challenge: to rise above petty politics and make our voices heard.
You can make history on Nov. 7 by voting to stop the ban on civil unions and same-sex marriages. No other state has made this declaration, but Wisconsin voters have the opportunity to stop discrimination. A "no" vote will make history-and make Wisconsin a better state.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.shepherd-express.com/1pubicindex.lasso?-token.editorialreferral=175471.113121.
Here is a link to "20 Effects of the Civil Unions and Marriage Ban" presented by A Fair Wisconsin: http://www.fairwisconsin.com/20/index.html
And here's everything you need to know for this Tuesday, November 7 to vote "NO" on the amendment. Please feel free to copy & paste and send the following to your friends, family, and coworkers in Wisconsin...
What will I see on the ballot?
"Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"
How do I vote if I don't want this in our constitution?
Vote "No." Learn more about what the amendment means and why you should vote "No" here:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/ban
Where do I vote?
Find your polling place: http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote/#polling
What time are the polls open?
In most places, you can vote between 7am-8pm on Tuesday, November 7. You can also vote early -- which you should do if you're volunteering with us on Election Day. Learn how to vote early:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote#early
What do I need to bring if I voted in the last election?
As long as you haven't moved out of your voting ward, you don't need to bring a thing.
I've never voted in Wisconsin. What do I need to know?
To vote you must live in Wisconsin for at least ten days before Election Day. Show up at your polling place on November 7 with a Wisconsin drivers license (if you don't have one, you can use a Wisconsin state ID or your social security number). You must also bring proof of residence (see next question). Get more info:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote
What should I bring for proof of residence?
A valid Wisconsin state driver's license is best, but you can also use another state-issued identification, a residential lease, a utility bill, a bank statement, or a paycheck. For more info visit:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote#proof
What if I moved since I last voted?
If you moved out of the ward that you last voted, you must register to vote in your current ward. Learn what you need to register here:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/vote/#register
Anything else I need to know?
For questions about the civil unions and marriage ban visit:
http://www.fairwisconsin.com
If you have questions about voting, call the State Election Board at 608-266-8005 or visit http://elections.state.wi.us
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 9:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home