PA government admits no Voter Fraud.

[Lord MJ]

And they could do that, and it may work, for a few weeks. They would probably accuse having regular white house addresses of being little more than election campaigning. But after all their rhetoric, the investigation continues, the public addresses continue, they will have to stop and think.

[amigocabal]

Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine would jump on that to accuse the administration of using the power of the Justice Department for political ends.

They will also point out that the government requires ID's to enter airlines, and the airlines themselves can not waive this requirement.

I wonder if Pennsylvania requires photo ID to buy a pistol...

[Rogue 9]

Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine would jump on that to accuse the administration of using the power of the Justice Department for political ends.

They will also point out that the government requires ID's to enter airlines, and the airlines themselves can not waive this requirement.

I wonder if Pennsylvania requires photo ID to buy a pistol...

This is about early voting hours, not voter ID laws. But since you bring it up, voting is a fundamental right and flying on an airplane isn't.

[Lord MJ]

That's what makes these laws so insidious, to the average person it sounds perfectly reasonable to require IDs to vote. But the fact there is little evidence to support the notion of voter fraud of the type these laws are supposedly trying to correct, and the fact that these are all occurring in republican states, and the fact that a republican went on records saying these laws would win the election for Romney, the fact that they made no effort at all to address the many thousands of voters that will not be able to vote, the fact that many forms of id were made "not good enough" to vote, and the other shenanigans going on regarding voting, credence to a conspiracy.

And I'm not saying everyone that voted for these laws is in on it. Some of the legislators probably honestly fear the boogeyman of illegal immigrants voting in elections. The ones that concocted these laws however need to have their feet held to the fire. And need to it made perfectly clear to, that they are playing with fire.

[Lord MJ]

Actually this thread is about voter ID laws, the other thread is about early voting hours.

[Rogue 9]

Actually this thread is about voter ID laws, the other thread is about early voting hours.

Ah. Got which thread I was in mixed up. My mistake. The point stands, however.

[amigocabal]

That's what makes these laws so insidious, to the average person it sounds perfectly reasonable to require IDs to vote.

Why do you suppose to the average person, these laws are reasonable?

[Lord MJ]

It sounds reasonable to the average person because it's intuitive that people should have proof to say who they say they are in order to vote in order to prevent people not authorized from voting to vote. This is why the GOP thinks they can get away with this. Because any argument against this will sound like radical fear mongering.

[Dark Hellion]

That's what makes these laws so insidious, to the average person it sounds perfectly reasonable to require IDs to vote.

Why do you suppose to the average person, these laws are reasonable?

Because the average person does not have a rigorous backing in political theory or philosophy. Arguments based upon appeals to the ignorance of the average person should not be used as part of a policy of sound governance. You don't also believe that quantum mechanics is a bunch of bunk because it sounds ridiculous to the average person do you?

[SAMAS]

And make it pefectly clear that if he does not get the law repealed, then at the slightest bit of evidence that he and his cronies enacted this law in order to and the election to Romney, they will all be bought up on charges so fast it will make their heads spin.

"Smallest hint" my ass. Jon Stewart has the asshole on video bragging about it (presumably to supporters).

[amigocabal]

It sounds reasonable to the average person because it's intuitive that people should have proof to say who they say they are in order to vote in order to prevent people not authorized from voting to vote. This is why the GOP thinks they can get away with this. Because any argument against this will sound like radical fear mongering.

Maybe it sounds like radical fear mongering because it is radical fear mongering.

[Lord MJ]

It sounds reasonable to the average person because it's intuitive that people should have proof to say who they say they are in order to vote in order to prevent people not authorized from voting to vote. This is why the GOP thinks they can get away with this. Because any argument against this will sound like radical fear mongering.

Maybe it sounds like radical fear mongering because it is radical fear mongering.

Sigh...

One more time.

But the fact there is little evidence to support the notion of voter fraud of the type these laws are supposedly trying to correct, and the fact that these are all occurring in republican states, and the fact that a republican went on record saying these laws would win the election for Romney, the fact that they made no effort at all to address the many thousands of voters that will not be able to vote, the fact that many forms of id were made "not good enough" to vote, and the other shenanigans going on regarding voting, credence to a conspiracy.

It is pretty clear what they are trying to do here. An attempt to tilt the vote just enough to win the elections. Any consideration of the many tens of thousands to eligible voters that will no longer be able to vote is treated as an afterthought, republican officials bragging that this will win the election for Romney, and That there is no evidence of any voter fraud that would necessitate such a law means that this is a farce. And quite frankly a big enough farce to cause a consitutional crisis after November if Romney wins the state and the margin of victory falls within the margin of the number of eligible voters denied the right to vote. And is a big enough issue that the DOJ should begin the motions of possible criminal charges against some of these politicians that are masterminding this.

[Lord MJ]

Lets put it this way, in order for the laws to be constitutional, then it has to be costless for someone to get an ID, otherwise it's a poll tax. Meaning that not only the IDs themselves must be free, but the user should not have to pay to obtain the ID. As in the offices to obtain the ID must all be in walking distance from everyone's home and be open 24/7. Or the voter ID applications must be mailed to all residences with postage free shipping.

The drafters of these laws did not even think about this, it's pretty clear the tens of thousands of voters that will be denied the vote was not a major concern for the drafters at best. At worst it was deliberately designed so that these voters would not be able to vote. A proper and thorough DOJ investigation would ultimately uncover what is the case.

[Alyeska]

It sounds reasonable to the average person because it's intuitive that people should have proof to say who they say they are in order to vote in order to prevent people not authorized from voting to vote. This is why the GOP thinks they can get away with this. Because any argument against this will sound like radical fear mongering.

Maybe it sounds like radical fear mongering because it is radical fear mongering.

Alright asshole, I am sick and tired of your dishonest bullshit. We already showed you in this very fucking thread that what is going on in Pensylvania is voter suppression by the GOP and that they fucking admitted it was not about preventing fraud.

Go read the first fucking page which you apparently missed the first fucking time we told you what was going on.

[Elfdart]

I've been pointing out for years that the Torture Party has been Ku Kluxing the vote and pulling other stunts to either prevent minorities from voting, or to dilute their votes in case they are cast, such as racially gerrymandered districts. Just as I predicted, they're hell bent on keeping Hispanics and the elderly poor from voting, too. The next target is fairly obvious: poor people in general. For years some of the loonier right-wingers have believed that lower-class people -especially ones who get public assistance or work for the government (teachers, janitors, etc)- shouldn't be allowed to vote. Since the Paul Ryans made it a point to take away collective bargaining from public employees, the right of teachers, janitors and others to vote in elections is next up on the chopping block.

It's all fairly simple: look at which groups the Torture Party is trying to keep from voting and those are the groups they want to screw the hardest.

[Beowulf]

Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine would jump on that to accuse the administration of using the power of the Justice Department for political ends.

They will also point out that the government requires ID's to enter airlines, and the airlines themselves can not waive this requirement.

I wonder if Pennsylvania requires photo ID to buy a pistol...

PA doesn't, the ATF does. To buy any firearm, you must produce an ID to the FFL you are buying it from. This assumes you're buying from a dealer, as opposed to a private party transaction.

[Sea Skimmer]

Private parties can only sell long arms though, without going through a FFL dealer, in the state of PA, unless the sale/gift is between close family members. Parent-child-grandparent as I recall. Still, your ability to obtain a reasonable militia weapon certainly isn't being stopped by lack of photo ID.

But in any event, the local Philadelphia government just have a study done that was released a few days ahead, headed by a Republican I might add, to look for cases of voter fraud in the city in the past 12 years. They found hundreds of cases of people misspelling names, and exactly one instance of voter impersonation that might have been prevented by a photo ID requirement. Meanwhile the city government also estimates 18% of the city voting population lacks a valid photo ID for voting purposes.

[Lord MJ]

And the voter ID law has been upheld by Pennsylvania's courts.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... er-id-law/

Share
Comments (Add comment)
Permalink
3 minutes ago
Pennsylvania judge upholds voter ID law
politicalmugshot
Posted by
CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.

The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.

In the Keystone State, the issue has largely been divided along party lines. Republicans argue the new law helps to fight fraud, while Democrats make the case that the new law aids Republicans in the voting booth by limiting turnout by minorities in the crucial battleground state.

But Judge Robert Simpson, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, on Wednesday issued an order expressing no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect, despite writing in his decision that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.

"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for the counsel. Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to the evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system," Simpson wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter will be appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In late July, the Justice Department began a formal investigation into whether the state's requirement violates civil rights laws, saying the state had 30 days to provide the requested documents.

Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated. To date the Justice Department has already filed suit against two states: South Carolina and Texas. Officials are awaiting a ruling by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on a Texas case argued in early July. Judges have scheduled a hearing on the South Carolina case later this summer.

The Civil Rights Division has taken an aggressive approach to challenging voter photo-ID laws, which many Democratic and minority groups claim is an effort by Republican-controlled state governments to suppress voter turnout. Republicans have charged the challenges reflect purely partisan politics designed to enhance minority turnout at the polls.

– CNN's Ashley Killough, Terry Frieden, Karan Olson, Sarah Hoye and Carol Cratty contributed to this report.

Which is why I support a criminal case against the architects of this. Because even if the law itself is legal, the fact that it was concocted as a scheme to defraud minorities is a crime. The law itself can go forward, but those responsible for devising it would still be liable. The person that publicly admitted that this will hand the election to Romney, investigated and proscecuted if sufficient evidence is uncovered that this was the intent of the law.

[Wing Commander MAD]

The Dems don't seem to be taking this lying down at least. I recieved a robo-call from my state representive informing me of the new requirement, and that if I had problems obtaining a valid ID or had any questions that I should call his office for assistance.

[Lord MJ]

A comment I read on a forum. Just wow!

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign- ... obama-2016

Obama is currently at about a 70% chance to win the election based the model from 538, which is based on polling trends and the economic data. That is far more significant than a single poll from Rasmussen. More than that, Romney's path to victory is very, very narrow. He can't afford to lose a single swing state if he wants to get the presidency. I'm not saying it's impossible for Romney to win, but the odds are against him right now.

Honestly, his best bet is to hope that Voter ID laws discourage elderly and impoverished democrats from voting and reduce turnout. In-person voter fraud obviously doesn't happen much in real life, but I'll take anything that gives Romney an edge... even if it's "unpatriotic" to make it harder for the poor to vote.

And for the main topic of the article, hell yeah Obama should not accept the results of the election if the voter ID laws make the difference. We need to send a clear message that elections will not be stolen and extraordinary measures must be taken to ensure that they dont.

[Gandalf]

And for the main topic of the article, hell yeah Obama should not accept the results of the election if the voter ID laws make the difference. We need to send a clear message that elections will not be stolen and extraordinary measures must be taken to ensure that they dont.

If they won't prosecute Bush and his administration, they won't do that. It'll be buried under a tide of "blah blah obey blah unity."

The time to "send that message" was back in 2000 when people were being stricken from the rolls by private corporations. But nothing happened, so the left lost control of the narrative, and the story was "democrats want illegals/dead/other to vote!"

[amigocabal]

Judge rejects bid to block Pa. voter ID law

Judge rejects bid to block Pa. voter ID law

By Amy Worden and Bob Warner

HARRISBURG - A Commonwealth Court judge denied a bid by civil rights groups to block the new voter identification law from taking effect, delivering a first-round victory to Gov. Corbett and legislative Republicans who pushed the measure through this spring saying it was needed to prevent voter fraud.

In a 70-page decision deloibvered Wednesday morning, Judge Robert E. Simpson said the plaintiffs did not establish that "disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable."

Simpson also said plaintiffs did not prove that denying an injunction would cause "greater injury," and instead noted that halting the process now would interfere with election machinery now in motion to prepare for the Nov. 6 vote.

Continue reading...

The decision is here.

It relied heavily on a Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), which upheld Indiana's voter ID law. Significantly, the Commonwealth Court (the court that held the trial) noted that Pennsylvania provided for provisional ballots, just like Indiana did in Crawford. See op. at 11 and 67. It also noted that in one case where a state court struck down a voter ID law based on its constitutional, it did not have a provisional ballot procedure. id. Lastly, the denial of a preliminary injunction was done without prejudice to future as-applied challenges.

[Lord MJ]

Considering that the there are not measures in place to ensure that the voters can obtain ids, whether the state workers can process through the applications, etc. Keeping in mind that the election is less than 90 days away. The state really has not put an emphasis on getting the people the requisite IDs. And that's the point. They are counting on this fact, they no that people that would vote democrat may be denied the vote. Ingenious plan, especially since they have folks like you saying, "well it makes sense", without understanding the ulterior motives involved in creating the bill, nor the logistical hurdles with getting valid ids to the eligible voters that the state has utterly failed to address.

[amigocabal]

The Court noted that there were several remedies for those facing as-applied burdens, such as provisions for absentee ballots, provisional ballots, and judicial review of an election board's refusal to count a provisional ballot or other issues that may come up. See op. at 66-68

[Block]

EI'm sure the completely non-partisan election board and court in Pennsyltucky is going to give those black people a fair listening to.