PA government admits no Voter Fraud.

[Alyeska]

amigocabal, you have ignored every time we point out this law will cause actual hardship because voter fraud as defined by the GOP does not exist.

[amigocabal]

amigocabal, you have ignored every time we point out this law will cause actual hardship because voter fraud as defined by the GOP does not exist.

You seem to be ignoring the actual decision by the court, which relied heavily on Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history....It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.

The same reasoning applies to the laws at issue in Pennsylvania. That is why the judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction against any enforcement of the law.

[Alyeska]

What the court claims is fucking irrelevant. Actual cases of real voter fraud are a fucking statistic. Less than a thousand cases in more than a decade. The actual number of people who will be affected by this change in the law is over a hundred thousand. The people who wrote this law fucking admitted that they are doing it purely to give Romney the fucking election.

[amigocabal]

What the court claims is fucking irrelevant. Actual cases of real voter fraud are a fucking statistic. Less than a thousand cases in more than a decade. The actual number of people who will be affected by this change in the law is over a hundred thousand. The people who wrote this law fucking admitted that they are doing it purely to give Romney the fucking election.

What a court claims is relevant because the original post was about a fucking court case.

Your reply makes it clear why I am inclined to believe Judge Robert Simpson, Judge Richard Posner, and Justice John Paul Stevens, all who upheld such laws against facial attacks, on this issue instead of you.

[Lord MJ]

No, the original post was about whether there is voter fraud that would neccesitate this law, whether it disenfranchises voters, and what the motives of the people that created the law are. You are conveniently ignoring that the architects of this bill admitted on video that the purpose of this law was to hand the election to Romney.

What part of that do you not understand?

[amigocabal]

No, the original post was about whether there is voter fraud that would neccesitate this law, whether it disenfranchises voters, and what the motives of the people that created the law are. You are conveniently ignoring that the architects of this bill admitted on video that the purpose of this law was to hand the election to Romney.

What part of that do you not understand?

Here is the original post, with emphases added.

HARRISBURG -- State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Backers of the requirement that most voters show an approved form of photo identification at the polls have said the law will prevent fraud and assure residents of the integrity of elections.

A coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is suing to stop the law from taking effect for the general election this fall. They argue it will disenfranchise legitimate voters who lack acceptable identification.

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the attorney general, declined to comment on the July 12 stipulation. Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, one of the parties contesting the law, said that by agreeing there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the parties can forgo calling witnesses to testify on that point.

The law also faces a review by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which on Monday sought documents related to voter registration and driver license rolls. The department informed Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele in the letter that it is examining whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act.

The word "Romney" does not appear in the article at all.

[Alyeska]

The claimed purposes of this law are to stop voter fraud. A simple statistical analysis shows the law will cause more harm than good. Then combine this with the knowledge that the GOP pushed this law purely to swing the election by disenfrachising voters.

The right to vote is a fundamental right thanks to the constitution. So you can't just revoke people's rights with a fucking partisan law.

The court ruling is fucking irrelevant because the judge had his head up his ass and ignored the enormity of the situation.

I don't care about the partisan politics. If democrats were pulling this stunt in another state I would be calling for their blood just as much. I consider voter disenfranchisement and manipulation to be equal to voter fraud. I would put people in prison for life if I could.

[Lord MJ]

The word "Romney" does not appear in the article at all.

Your point? So what if the word "Romney" does not appear in the article. That has nothing to do with the fact that the architects of this bill admitted on video that the purpose of this law was to hand the election to Romney.

[Alyeska]

No, the original post was about whether there is voter fraud that would neccesitate this law, whether it disenfranchises voters, and what the motives of the people that created the law are. You are conveniently ignoring that the architects of this bill admitted on video that the purpose of this law was to hand the election to Romney.

What part of that do you not understand?

Here is the original post, with emphases added.

HARRISBURG -- State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Backers of the requirement that most voters show an approved form of photo identification at the polls have said the law will prevent fraud and assure residents of the integrity of elections.

A coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is suing to stop the law from taking effect for the general election this fall. They argue it will disenfranchise legitimate voters who lack acceptable identification.

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the attorney general, declined to comment on the July 12 stipulation. Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, one of the parties contesting the law, said that by agreeing there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the parties can forgo calling witnesses to testify on that point.

The law also faces a review by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which on Monday sought documents related to voter registration and driver license rolls. The department informed Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele in the letter that it is examining whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act.

The word "Romney" does not appear in the article at all.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 3#p3700963

The bills fucking authors admitted it was to hand the election to Romney.

http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter- ... -pa/37153/

And the bills authors even admitted under oath there wasn't any evidence that supports the need for the fucking thing.

[amigocabal]

The court ruling is fucking irrelevant because the judge had his head up his ass and ignored the enormity of the situation.

Gee, that would make such a great argument on appeal. I am sure you can write an excellent legal brief.

And the bills authors even admitted under oath there wasn't any evidence that supports the need for the fucking thing.

And yet, the Supreme Court plurality in Crawford noted that "[t]he record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history" Crawford, plurality opinion of Stevens, J., at 11. And yet, because
of the "importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters", the facial challenge was rejected. op. at 12.

Finally, the commonwealth court's decision, on its own terms, leaves open narrower challenges to the law seeking remedies to allow people to vote if they have been unduly burdened by the law. See Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, CMW330MD2012, slip op. at 66-68 (Aug. 15, 2012) (noting the availability of provisional ballots and" judicial review of a county board of elections decision not to count a provisional ballot", and the existence of other "procedures and judicial remedies" for burdened individuals.)

[Lord MJ]

The court ruling is fucking irrelevant because the judge had his head up his ass and ignored the enormity of the situation.

Gee, that would make such a great argument on appeal. I am sure you can write an excellent legal brief.

And the bills authors even admitted under oath there wasn't any evidence that supports the need for the fucking thing.

And yet, the Supreme Court plurality in Crawford noted that "[t]he record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history" Crawford, plurality opinion of Stevens, J., at 11. And yet, because
of the "importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters", the facial challenge was rejected. op. at 12.

Finally, the commonwealth court's decision, on its own terms, leaves open narrower challenges to the law seeking remedies to allow people to vote if they have been unduly burdened by the law. See Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, CMW330MD2012, slip op. at 66-68 (Aug. 15, 2012) (noting the availability of provisional ballots and" judicial review of a county board of elections decision not to count a provisional ballot", and the existence of other "procedures and judicial remedies" for burdened individuals.)

And we are supposed to trust this judicial remedies for a law that has no reasonable basis for existing, and was created specifically to manipulate the results of elections? Sorry, no dice. Bottom line, I don't care about the State courts and their rulings. The lack of rationale for these laws and the clear motivation for creating these laws requires that the feds step in. In that case, whatever state court opinions were made are completely irrelevant since we are dealing with federal election laws now.

[D.Turtle]

Amigocabal, going away from the purely legal point of view as decided by various courts: What is your view on this matter?

[Lord MJ]

And one more thing...

Finally, the commonwealth court's decision, on its own terms, leaves open narrower challenges to the law seeking remedies to allow people to vote if they have been unduly burdened by the law. See Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, CMW330MD2012, slip op. at 66-68 (Aug. 15, 2012) (noting the availability of provisional ballots and" judicial review of a county board of elections decision not to count a provisional ballot", and the existence of other "procedures and judicial remedies" for burdened individuals.)

So the state does not have to make any effort at all to supply IDs or make easily available IDs to hundreds of thousands of people that may not have IDs, inform people of the new requirements, or even give a damn about these people. The people can instead seek "judicial review". Are you kidding me? And I suppose that Romney wins the election, and all these people that didn't have IDs get judicial relief several months later, the courts will reverse Romney's victory and put Obama back in the white house. Really?

[SirNitram]

And one more thing...

Finally, the commonwealth court's decision, on its own terms, leaves open narrower challenges to the law seeking remedies to allow people to vote if they have been unduly burdened by the law. See Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, CMW330MD2012, slip op. at 66-68 (Aug. 15, 2012) (noting the availability of provisional ballots and" judicial review of a county board of elections decision not to count a provisional ballot", and the existence of other "procedures and judicial remedies" for burdened individuals.)

So the state does not have to make any effort at all to supply IDs or make easily available IDs to hundreds of thousands of people that may not have IDs, inform people of the new requirements, or even give a damn about these people. The people can instead seek "judicial review". Are you kidding me? And I suppose that Romney wins the election, and all these people that didn't have IDs get judicial relief several months later, the courts will reverse Romney's victory and put Obama back in the white house. Really?

Any judicial review after the polls close will be subject to another Brooks Brothers Riot.

[amigocabal]

The court ruling is fucking irrelevant because the judge had his head up his ass and ignored the enormity of the situation.

Gee, that would make such a great argument on appeal. I am sure you can write an excellent legal brief.

And the bills authors even admitted under oath there wasn't any evidence that supports the need for the fucking thing.

And yet, the Supreme Court plurality in Crawford noted that "[t]he record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history" Crawford, plurality opinion of Stevens, J., at 11. And yet, because
of the "importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters", the facial challenge was rejected. op. at 12.

Finally, the commonwealth court's decision, on its own terms, leaves open narrower challenges to the law seeking remedies to allow people to vote if they have been unduly burdened by the law. See Applewhite v. Pennsylvania, CMW330MD2012, slip op. at 66-68 (Aug. 15, 2012) (noting the availability of provisional ballots and" judicial review of a county board of elections decision not to count a provisional ballot", and the existence of other "procedures and judicial remedies" for burdened individuals.)

And we are supposed to trust this judicial remedies for a law that has no reasonable basis for existing, and was created specifically to manipulate the results of elections? Sorry, no dice. Bottom line, I don't care about the State courts and their rulings. The lack of rationale for these laws and the clear motivation for creating these laws requires that the feds step in. In that case, whatever state court opinions were made are completely irrelevant since we are dealing with federal election laws now.

If the feds try to sue to stop this law, Crawford would, being binding Supreme Court precedent, at least determine how the case would be decided, if not require an outright rejection by lower courts.

Crawford reaffirmed the principle announced in Anderson v.
Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983), that “evenhanded restrictions that protect
the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious. 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9., quoted in Crawford, plurality op. of Stevens, J., at 6.


Are the feds going to try to convince the Supreme Court to overrule Crawford? Because five of the justices who voted to uphold the law at issue in Crawford are still on the Court, and we all know how many justices there are on the Supreme Court.

So the state does not have to make any effort at all to supply IDs or make easily available IDs to hundreds of thousands of people that may not have IDs, inform people of the new requirements, or even give a damn about these people. The people can instead seek "judicial review". Are you kidding me?

Judicial review is how people seek relief from violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. I need not list the Supreme Court decisions which granted such relief. Crawford identified one case that provided such relief in the context of voting rights. See Norman v. Reed, 502 U. S.
279 (1992), cited in Crawford, op. at 6.

Amigocabal, going away from the purely legal point of view as decided by various courts: What is your view on this matter?

Requiring ID to vote in a public election is like requiring ID to purchase a firearm from a public or private vendor. It is not wrong, as long as the state makes reasonable measures to ensure that those who do not already have ID may get one free of charge.

[Alyeska]

Requiring ID to vote in a public election is like requiring ID to purchase a firearm from a public or private vendor. It is not wrong, as long as the state makes reasonable measures to ensure that those who do not already have ID may get one free of charge.

Voting is a fundamental right. And unlike casting a vote, a car and a gun can kill. Calling it reasonable does not make it reasonable. Passing the law just before a major election does not make it reasonable.

Provide justification for this law in light of the fact it will disenfranchise so many voters.

[Alyeska]

Jon Stewart talks about "Cockblock The Vote".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... 95832.html

[amigocabal]

Requiring ID to vote in a public election is like requiring ID to purchase a firearm from a public or private vendor. It is not wrong, as long as the state makes reasonable measures to ensure that those who do not already have ID may get one free of charge.

Voting is a fundamental right. And unlike casting a vote, a car and a gun can kill. Calling it reasonable does not make it reasonable. Passing the law just before a major election does not make it reasonable.

Provide justification for this law in light of the fact it will disenfranchise so many voters.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. I am sure you have heard of the Second Amendment.

As for justification, I agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Crawford.

[Alyeska]

Requiring ID to vote in a public election is like requiring ID to purchase a firearm from a public or private vendor. It is not wrong, as long as the state makes reasonable measures to ensure that those who do not already have ID may get one free of charge.

Voting is a fundamental right. And unlike casting a vote, a car and a gun can kill. Calling it reasonable does not make it reasonable. Passing the law just before a major election does not make it reasonable.

Provide justification for this law in light of the fact it will disenfranchise so many voters.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. I am sure you have heard of the Second Amendment.

As for justification, I agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Crawford.

Enunciate your opinion.

[amigocabal]

Enunciate your opinion.

Voter fraud has been documented by historians. Here is one example.

"`When you've voted `em with their whiskers on, you take `em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote `em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote `em a third time with the mustache. If that ain't enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote `em plain face. That makes every one of `em good for four votes.'" A. Callow, The Tweed Ring 210 (1966) (quoting M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928)).

The voter ID requirement imposes little burden on the vast majority of voters. Concerns about the minority who do not have ID can be mitigated by offering free ID, perhaps at the same places where registrations are accepted in the first place.

Of course, if the state can not take reasonable measures to provide free ID to eligible voters who do not have it, then voter ID requirements should be suspended. This does not seem to be the case in Pennsylvania, nor was it the case in Indiana.

(I do not expect states to search every nook and cranny for eligible voters in order to ensure they have ID's.)

[Lord MJ]

Voter fraud has been documented by historians. Here is one example.

"`When you've voted `em with their whiskers on, you take `em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote `em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote `em a third time with the mustache. If that ain't enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote `em plain face. That makes every one of `em good for four votes.'" A. Callow, The Tweed Ring 210 (1966) (quoting M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928)).

So now in 2010, after GOP majorities take power, these voter ID laws come up and are justified by historical voter fraud from the 1920s, while since then there has been nothing that necessitated the use of voter IDs? Really?

The voter ID requirement imposes little burden on the vast majority of voters. Concerns about the minority who do not have ID can be mitigated by offering free ID, perhaps at the same places where registrations are accepted in the first place.

Of course, if the state can not take reasonable measures to provide free ID to eligible voters who do not have it, then voter ID requirements should be suspended. This does not seem to be the case in Pennsylvania, nor was it the case in Indiana.

(I do not expect states to search every nook and cranny for eligible voters in order to ensure they have ID's.)

Or they could not have the voter ID laws in the first place, that will work too. Barring that, a long term implementation plan would suffice. Say by the 2016 have all the logistics in place to make sure eligible voters get their IDs. There are several hundred thousand in Pennsylvania that don't have ids. Since that's the difference in an election, it's better to tread carefully. But the point is that the people who created this bill are figuring that a sizable amount of eligible voters will not obtain IDs for the election its the driving force behind these bills. They don't want the people that don't have IDs to get them, at least not by this election.

[SirNitram]

Enunciate your opinion.

Voter fraud has been documented by historians. Here is one example.

"`When you've voted `em with their whiskers on, you take `em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote `em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote `em a third time with the mustache. If that ain't enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote `em plain face. That makes every one of `em good for four votes.'" A. Callow, The Tweed Ring 210 (1966) (quoting M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928)).

The voter ID requirement imposes little burden on the vast majority of voters. Concerns about the minority who do not have ID can be mitigated by offering free ID, perhaps at the same places where registrations are accepted in the first place.

Of course, if the state can not take reasonable measures to provide free ID to eligible voters who do not have it, then voter ID requirements should be suspended. This does not seem to be the case in Pennsylvania, nor was it the case in Indiana.

(I do not expect states to search every nook and cranny for eligible voters in order to ensure they have ID's.)

Most people would think twice before giving a quote from the Jim Crow era which is only a quote, and not, yanno, documented facts. As the Brennan Center For Justice noted, in this century(Indeed, over the past two years of voting suppresion laws), 11% of the populace could lose the vote who would have it legally. Whereas the actual studies for actual voter fraud in this century show it's about as common as me being bitten by a shark which is scared off by a sudden lightning bolt to the face, 0.0009%, in the example of the 2004 Washington Gubernational vote.

Idiots and liars, of course, conflate voter fraud with registration fraud(Mickey Mouse on the rolls), or honest mistakes with no intent or actual fraud.

In short, voter ID laws are nothing more than legal cover for voter suppression. Dredging up quotes from the Roaring 20's is not evidence; no more than quotes of Vietnam Vets being spat on, or stock men leaping from the windows in the 30s crash.

[Lord MJ]

So in another discussion, I suggested a compromise was to phase in the voter ID requirements over time. Perhaps having the sign up materials and photo booths in the polling places so that perhaps by 2016 it will be a non-issue.

Well this lady I was dealing with said that "Obama violated the law by granting illegals a reprieve, and therefore these people have a vested interest in keeping Obama in power. So we need to require IDs to prevent the influx of illegals voting this election. We can't wait until 2016."

I said, well most of these people have been in this country their entire lives, so there is no evidence that they are going to turn up and start casting fraudulent votes. Furthermore regardless of Obama's motives in granting the reprieve, there are millions of americans that may be denied the vote. Protecting them is the foremost concern.

Wait until the law can be properly implemented, then require the IDs to your hearts content, no fuss, no muss.

[Alyeska]

Enunciate your opinion.

Voter fraud has been documented by historians. Here is one example.

"`When you've voted `em with their whiskers on, you take `em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote `em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote `em a third time with the mustache. If that ain't enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote `em plain face. That makes every one of `em good for four votes.'" A. Callow, The Tweed Ring 210 (1966) (quoting M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928)).

The voter ID requirement imposes little burden on the vast majority of voters. Concerns about the minority who do not have ID can be mitigated by offering free ID, perhaps at the same places where registrations are accepted in the first place.

Of course, if the state can not take reasonable measures to provide free ID to eligible voters who do not have it, then voter ID requirements should be suspended. This does not seem to be the case in Pennsylvania, nor was it the case in Indiana.

(I do not expect states to search every nook and cranny for eligible voters in order to ensure they have ID's.)

"But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

There are less than a thousand confirmed cases of voter fraud since 2000. Less than a thousand over ten years across the entire nation.

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Enunciate your opinion.

Voter fraud has been documented by historians. Here is one example.

"`When you've voted `em with their whiskers on, you take `em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote `em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote `em a third time with the mustache. If that ain't enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote `em plain face. That makes every one of `em good for four votes.'" A. Callow, The Tweed Ring 210 (1966) (quoting M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928)).

I don't want to dogpile here, so I'm just going to point out one thing here and be done.

That quote may be from the twenties, but its refering to Tammany Hall, under Boss Tweed, in the Civil War Era.