Judge Upholds PA Voter ID Law

Pennslyvania Voters Required to Show Photo ID

Kudos to this judge. Now I just hope other states start doing the same.

I agree. No id is opening the door for voter fraud. The Chicago way...early and often. My only concern is there is plenty time for an appeal.

Originally Posted by fatsnbul

I agree. No id is opening the door for voter fraud.

Even though there is no evidence of rampart voter fraud? What problem exists that we are fixing with this?

I read several reports of people showing up to vote only to find that someone without an id signed the roster in their spot and voted.

Don't matter, Obama is allowing a million illegals to become citizens just in time for the election so they can vote for him. What a dirty racist liar of a President we have.

Originally Posted by fatsnbul

I read several reports of people showing up to vote only to find that someone without an id signed the roster in their spot and voted.

Any links to those reports?

As disturbing a ruling as I have seen in a month of Sundays.

And for anyone who still thinks this is about "protecting voting rights" rather than partisan political gain, here's what the Pennsylvania House Majority leader (Mike Turzai, R) said back in June.

"Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”



My guesses are often correct.

Originally Posted by Clyde

Even though there is no evidence of rampart voter fraud? What problem exists that we are fixing with this?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this forum alone half a dozen youtubes have been shown showing fraud in Pennsylvania. Rampant is a relative term. It certainly is 'prevalent'.

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this forum alone half a dozen youtubes have been shown showing fraud in Pennsylvania. Rampant is a relative term. It certainly is 'prevalent'.

Judge in this case even commented that he thought the law was valid DESPITE the lack of proof of voter fraud.

As I've always said this is pure politics hidden under the "protect the vote" mantra.

Originally Posted by Clyde

Judge in this case even commented that he thought the law was valid DESPITE the lack of proof of voter fraud.

As I've always said this is pure politics hidden under the "protect the vote" mantra.

Then the judge needs to use Youtube some more.

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

Then the judge needs to use Youtube some more.

Does one attempt at voter fraud justify the law?

Originally Posted by Clyde

Does one attempt at voter fraud justify the law?

We have posted numerous ones here.

Add to it the open and brazen intimidation of the Black Panthers and the precients where there is well over 100% votes compared to registered voters and there is no way to have confidence in the balloting system. When people have no confidence in their system it will fail. The evidence of malfeasance is numerous and open and in formal reports. Refusing to acknowledge it is dangerous.

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

We have posted numerous ones here.

Add to it the open and brazen intimidation of the Black Panthers and the precients where there is well over 100% votes compared to registered voters and there is no way to have confidence in the balloting system. When people have no confidence in their system it will fail. The evidence of malfeasance is numerous and open and in formal reports. Refusing to acknowledge it is dangerous.

So you believe that those that were fighting for the ID didn't present evidence of real voter fraud?

BGC, do you believe that the SOLE reason these laws are now being proposed in various states is to protect the sanctity of the vote?

An interesting analysis of the new requirements from (gasp) The National Review.

Proponents of voter ID laws often say the requirement is not onerous because state-issued photo ID is available at no charge. But in all restrictive ID states except South Carolina, even if an eligible voter does not have to pay for the ID itself, he or she must provide supporting documentation — such as a birth certificate or a naturalization certificate — to obtain a state-issued photo ID suitable for voting. These records can be very costly.
An official copy of a birth certificate can cost anywhere from $15 to $30, depending on the state. The fees for a new passport or to renew a passport are $135 and $110, respectively. The price of a replacement naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship is $345.
Married women who have changed their surname face an additional burden: They may need to present a marriage license with their current name to obtain a photo ID. Only 48 percent of voting-age American women who have ready access to their birth certificate have their current name on it. Fees for official copies of marriage licenses range from $5 to $40.Thus, a married woman who does not have a certified copy of her birth certificate and marriage license could easily spend $30 to $70 acquiring the documents necessary to obtain a photo ID.
But even these costs pale in comparison to the potential costs for people who were never issued birth certificates or whose birth certificates contain significant errors with respect to their race, name, or other key identifiers. These individuals often must obtain other official records, such as their school attendance records, spouse’s documentation, or childhood documentation. Each document carries with it separate costs and administrative processes.

In my view, this isn’t a case against ID requirements as such. Rather, it is a case for implementing ID requirements over a long enough period of time that various bureaucracies can accommodate hard cases.

The central problem with the Pennsylvania voter ID law is that it expects too much from Pennsylvania’s state government and from the potentially large number of Pennsylvania voters who do not have proper identification in too short a timeframe.


Further Thoughts on Voter ID in Light of the Pennsylvania Decision - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

Originally Posted by Clyde

BGC, do you believe that the SOLE reason these laws are now being proposed in various states is to protect the sanctity of the vote?

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

So basically we are back to 'the other side does it so now we'll do it and that makes it right' line of reasoning?

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

So we agree this is pure politics. That's my only point. People hiding behind "why can't they show an ID" are missing the true point.

Originally Posted by PurplePride92

So basically we are back to 'the other side does it so now we'll do it and that makes it right' line of reasoning?

The operative word being bolded.