The Grand Old Party of anecdotes whines Democrats using anecdotes! Claims more time to vote gives "...too much access to the voters."

A federal judge continues to wade through the most outrageous excuses for voter ID and shorter voting hours ever. 

This breath taking partisan headline gleaned from a comment by a supposed nonpartisan county clerk caught my attention. Cap Times:

Waukesha county clerk: Weekend voting gave 'too much access' to Milwaukee, Madison.

That’s the problem; too much access for voters to vote. Who knew. Couldn’t have summed up the Republican scheme better.

The party that uses hearsay and anecdotal constituent stories to write policy, doesn’t like it when tables are turned, even though in this instance the stories aren’t anecdotal:

Attorneys for the state argue the plaintiffs are using anecdotal, "one-in-a-million" cases as an argument to strike down the laws.

Of course it was at that point state attorneys ironically went immediately to their anecdotal evidence:

Cedarburg City Clerk Constance McHugh said she hasn't seen long lines or other complications as a result of the photo ID requirement, and said voters in her community have been pleased to have it in place. 

And while Republicans claim voters are smart, and don’t need a costly ad campaign educating the public about the new voter ID laws, they aren't smart enough to handle more than one location for in-person absentee voting…which confuses them.

Clerk McHugh testified that a policy limiting in-person absentee voting to one location allows her to have more control over the process, and said she believes more than one location would be confusing for Cedarburg voters.

Port Washington city clerk Susan Westerbeke agreed … arguing statewide consistency can limit voter confusion.

So we’re smart, but easily confused? 

Here it comes, “TOO MUCH ACCESS TO THE VOTERS AS FAR AS OPPORTUNITIES.” God forbid that from ever happening:

"If there’s an office open 30 days versus an office that’s only open 10 work days, there are obviously voters that have a lot more access than someone else," Novack said.

"There has to come a point where it’s just giving over-access … to particular parts of the state." Asked whether she thought voters in Milwaukee and Madison had too much access, Novack said, "too much access to the voters as far as opportunities."

Large populations centers need more time to process voters, right? Not according to the Republican brain trust, who actually believe it (I thought they were just BSing). Here's the deal though, if small towns want to have longer voting hours like the cities, they should find a way to pay for it, and not take city hours away. Makes sense doesn't it? 

Waukesha County clerk Kathleen Novack. said she believes eliminating weekend voting "level(s) the playing field" between large urban areas and smaller suburban and rural communities that lack the resources to staff weekend hours.

While small communities argue against spending extra money on voting, they’re quick to spend city cash; with lines around the block, cities should spend more money on additional poll workers.

If long lines start to form at a polling place, Novack said, it would make more sense to add more staff and open more lines within that location rather than opening a second one. "For instance if you’re in the grocery store and there’s a long line, they open up another line," she said.

Finally, down the right wing rabbit hole we go for this classic…

She also argued long lines could be evidence that access is not an issue in urban areas. "Apparently access is an easy thing or they wouldn’t have long lines," she said.