This law is preventing no innocent person from voting. If they really want to vote they can and will.

 

Agree. The biggest misconception with this is that people must have a driver's license to vote.

 

I posted this a few weeks ago from the Pennsylvania Democratic website:

Starting on November 6, you must prove your identity by showing one of the following photo IDs issued by:

 

• The United States government, e.g., a U.S. passport
  
• The Commonwealth of PA, e.g., a driver’s license (NOTE: An expired driver’s license is okay as long as it is within 12 months after the expiration date)
  
• A PA municipality (e.g., city, county, borough, incorporated town) to municipal employees
  
• An accredited PA public or private institution of higher learning, e.g., a student card
  
• A PA care facility, which includes a long‐term care nursing facility, an assisted living residence or a personal care home
  
• U.S. Armed Forces branches or their reserves, including the PA National Guard (NOTE: The ID holder can be a veteran or current member; the expiration date can be indefinite.)
  

 

*Unless otherwise noted, your ID must be valid – in other words, your photo ID must have an expiration date and that date cannot have expired.

 

 

What You Need to Know About PA's New Voter ID Law | Pennsylvania Democratic Party

I asked first.

I've asked this very question in several threads and have yet to receive an answer but I'll play. Yes

After looking at what this addresses (in person voting) and does not address (early voting, absentee voting, etc.) and the comments from the parties as it went through I will lean more towards acknowledging this is more political/election driven that principle driven.

 

I've said all along that if this was NOT politically driven, absentee balloting would be the focus.

I've asked this very question in several threads and have yet to receive an answer but I'll play. Yes

 

Here's what I liken it to.

 

I perform audits for my company. I do tons of control testing on a routine basis. If a client has one person in charge of creating checks to pay vendors, and that same person is also in charge of signing the checks (or has access to the check stamp), there is a control deficiency. Now, that's not to say that the client in this example has ever had an issue where the person has taken advantage of their position, it simply means that the opportunity is present. We, as auditors, aren't going to just sit there and not request that this be changed. We'll attempt to get it corrected to add an additional protection against the possibility of fraud. Same thing with putting this requirement in. Whether or not any actual voter fraud has occurred is irrelevent. It's about making the process as strong as possible against the possibility of fraud occurring.

So it was OK when it was the left doing it I suppose...

 

You will have to remind me again just how many cases of fraud we are talking about.

 

I keep hearing that the number of PA voters without the newly prescribed form of identification is about three quarters of a million.

 

ANYONE who thinks that this is something other than partisan politics has their head in the sand.

You will have to remind me again just how many cases of fraud we are talking about.

 

I keep hearing that the number of PA voters without the newly prescribed form of identification is about three quarters of a million.

 

ANYONE who thinks that this is something other than partisan politics has their head in the sand.

 

So how do we know that the majority of these people going to vote for one particular party?

So how do we know that the majority of these people going to vote for one particular party?

 

We don't KNOW; or at least I don't.

 

But once again, I can make an educated guess. Even without going through the demographic specifics (black, college students, elderly, etc.).

 

It was implemented by a Republican-controlled state government in a swing state scant months before the general election. When passed, the majority house leader said that it would deliver Pennsylvania to Candidate Romney.

 

'Nuff said.

^College students should have no issue at all voting. So you can throw them out as a group negatively impacted by this.

If you can take time to register to vote, you can get an id...

This issue isn't a major concern to me, but I do believe requiring ID to vote is a good thing.

 

What I think is really bad about this situation is the timing of it, or the short time frame people have to comply.

 

This is my mindset. Word for word.

How is this going to stop innocent people from voting? Pay the $5-$20 and get an ID if you want to vote. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.

 

You have to jump through so many hoops and red tape to get the ID and there is not enough time to accommodate over 1,000,000 requests before November. See mcpapa's post #15 and Randy's post #23. That's my beef with this issue. I am all for voter ID and have said so many times. The timing of the enforcement of this new law stinks to high heaven.

So it was OK when it was the left doing it I suppose...

 

Absolutely not. But why not address it immediately instead of waiting until 2012 to fix it?

If you can take time to register to vote, you can get an id...

 

You don't have to pay money to register, wait 4-6 weeks for one government document and arrive at the appropriate hours to present that document in order to get the ID. People may have to miss work just to get an ID to vote. That's unacceptable for a constitutional right.

Absolutely not. But why not address it immediately instead of waiting until 2012 to fix it?

No argument from me.

 

I still like my idea for a solution I posted awhile back in another thread. Too late now though, but next general election it could be worked out.

If you can take time to register to vote, you can get an id...

 

True! After moving to our current home, I had to get a new Ky Drivers License with out new address on it and while getting that done, they just re registered me to vote in my new location!