Pennsylvania Judge Won't Stop State Voter ID Law: (Be ready to show ID in November!)

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter

Originally posted by Kaploink
Yet, the real sources of modern voter fraud continues. Hacked voting machines and mail in ballots. At least you will sleep better thinking illegal immigrants and dead people won't be voting.

Showing id when you vote is one step closer to eleminating the fraud problem. If a person wants to vote then getting and presenting identification isn't too much to expect.
Kudos Pennsylvania !

look it's pretty simple... republicans don't want anyone that will help Obama win the election to vote...all you people out there in america that do not have a republican-OKed picture ID are not americans.
republicans made sure that those people have no right to vote...talk about traitors

an idea...have the republican party pay FOR ALL the voter ID's needed, no exceptions

Goof Lord... drop the hysterics!

Nobody's right to vote is being impacted. Go get your FREE ID and feel free to exercise your right to vote. What's the freaking problem?

which ID is authorized by the republicans?
how much do the republicans want to charge for it?
where will the republicans have the ID's?

Good, I'm so glad that a judge actually has a clue. Now if only every state would do the same we can stop a bunch of voter fraud perpetrated by the DNC.

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
I consider myself a left leaning moderate. However, when I cast a vote it is based on the candidate and the issues NOT on the party.

NOW!
Can someone explain to me why they have a problem showing a valid form of identification at the polls. Its just common sense to me. I don't want any BS response about showing an ID infringing on your right. If you go to the store and purchase something with a credit card or check the store has the right to ask for proper ID. Is that infringing on your right too? I actually welcome them doing that because it shows me they are trying to prevent fraudulent charges.

What adult in todays society does not carry a valid form of ID?

here's a few....
articles.latimes.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
philadelphia.cbslocal.com...
www.phillytrib.com...
www.aclupa.org...
articles.philly.com...
blogs.tennessean.com...
www.npr.org...
thinkprogress.org...
thinkprogress.org...
thinkprogress.org...
www.nashvilleledger.com...
newamericamedia.org...

i could give you more, but it would take up too much space

I have only voted once (the last Prez election). During that time I lived in Texas and had to show my ID. I didn't think anything of it and still don't. Maybe I am naive but who doesn't have some type of photo ID? I mean if people have to show their ID's to something simple like purchase an item with a credit card than why not to vote? I fully understand that voter fraud is so rare it is almost nonexistent, but I have always thought showing an ID was the norm. Maybe it's because I was in the Military and we had to show our ID's for every little thing. I just don't really see this as a big of a deal as many have been making it. But the just my opinion.

reply to post by anon72


In the grand scheme of things has anyone else noticed a sudden backlash from judges (state and Federal) towards the administration / the AG and their legal maneuvering?

I find the staes that the DOJ has been targeting an interesting list... REspecially how they fit into national election campaigns.

Without Acorn....
Without illegally filling out absentee ballots like they did in virginia
Without supporting non US Citizens in their effort to vote in elections they are not eligable to vote in...

How on Earth will Obama get re-elected?

Originally posted by luccadeo
Good, I'm so glad that a judge actually has a clue. Now if only every state would do the same we can stop a bunch of voter fraud perpetrated by the DNC.

you mean like these republicans
politic365.com...
thinkprogress.org...
www.8newsnow.com...
articles.boston.com...
miamiherald.typepad.com...

Looking at the main argument of the folks opposed to the ID requirements....

"That there is no substantial proof of fraud so therefore no law is needed....."

Well, do you have to wait for someone to be murdered before you can pass a law that makes it a crime? Or do you try to stop it from happening before by letting known the penalties. I mean it is the one of the most important functions the Gov't has.

"Better to be safe than sorry (again)

reply to post by anon72


Personally i say GOOD, ID should be required in order to vote, as well as id required in order to get any aid or govt assistance in any form.
If you dont have ID then pack your crap and move back where you came from. They need stricter laws requiring U.S. Id for govt programs. I'm tired of seeing our tax dollars going to support the ones that come to our country but do not play by the same rules.

I think it should be nation wide, not just one state, if you dont have a U.S. issued id, then you sure as hell should not be allowed to vote.

Common sense dictates that ID is required to vote.....'nuff said.

Whiney babies that don't want to take the time nor make the effort to get ID probably don't really need to vote anyway. (That's just my opinion....not worth much.) They will probably expect the DMV folks to drive out to them, camera in tow, government pays the fee, they get their ID, then a bus or van will pick them up and take them to the polling booth to vote on election day.....oh, and take them home.....and buy them breakfast or lunch in the interim.

This is ridiculous.

Federal law states that American citizens over 18 MUST carry an ID at all times.
To all the legal citizens opposing this, is it so hard to reach into your wallet, and pull out a plastic card?

"But the old ladies don't have an ID!"

That is their fault, if they are so old they should know by now that it is the law to have an ID.

"But it is our RIGHT to vote, and this is infringement!"

No, it is a right for LEGAL U.S. citizens to vote. It is not infringement, unless you don't carry an ID. In which case is illegal.

By your same logic, we should stop checking ID's and doing background checks on gun purchases. That is also a right, no? Do you want convicted felons, kids, whoever, all buying guns, legally without question?

Should anyone be able to drive? If you don't need an ID, drivers licenses would be pointless. Hell, let's just let kids get alcohol and tobacco while we're at it.

Or, you could suck it up and realize that the responsible thing to do is give up a very small amount of freedom for a better way of life for the masses.

Here, we are required to show I.D. and it is a non-issue. People who are not intelligent enough to own a valid piece of I.D. shouldn't be voting anyway.

Originally posted by verschickter
Maybe I´m already brainwashed but when you get to vote in Germany, you get a card that you bring to the voting room, with you passport or ID and then you are allowed to vote. I see nothing sinister about that. Am I missing something?

That's how it is here in Florida, and in Missouri too. I can't believe there is any place that would let you vote without ID?

If someone can't figure out how to get a basic identification then they don't need to be voting anyway. Hell, there ought to be some kind of quiz to make sure they know a little bit about the process, and a little bit about the candidates before they just go in and blindly pick a name at random too!

Without ID, you can't cash a check, can't buy beer, cigarettes, or lottery tickets, can't go to a rated R movie, can't fly, probably can't get on a bus or train in some places, can't get into a bar, and are likely to get cavity searched if you happen to get stopped by a cop, because they'll never believe you just don't have an ID. Illegal immigrants get ID's, surely registered voters can get them!

And how did they get registered to vote in the first place if they didn't have an ID?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Look, common sense is not the agenda here.

The Democrat Party Line and talking points are that "no id should be required to vote" because then there would be accountability. They know their arguments are irrational and make zero sense so they must go with the emotion card on how some people cannot get an ID (though they need ID for social security checks) as a reason.

Hell then, why should we have ID to cash checks then? Why can't I open a bank account without ID then. How about buying a gun, shouldn't need ID for that either.

The only reason is the voter fraud they know is committed which benefits them.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Couldn´t have written it more accurate I suppose the quiz would not be possible due law and rights but its essentially a really good idea.

I wonder why there isn't too many supporters of the Defeat of the Law... trying to defend that side of things...

Why?

Because it is indefensible. Anyone with a brain listening to the arguments that it isn't a good law must look at the attorneys presenting the case and wonder: These folks need to be disbarred...

Originally posted by anon72
I wonder why there isn't too many supporters of the Defeat of the Law... trying to defend that side of things...

Why?

Because it is indefensible. Anyone with a brain listening to the arguments that it isn't a good law must look at the attorneys presenting the case and wonder: These folks need to be disbarred...

Actually from what I saw there is. The group behind this court action is appealing the decision to the state supreme court on an expedited basis due to the elections coming up.

Apparently the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is having a minor issue of their own with one of the justices being investigated for corruption. That leaves 6 justices who apparently are split down the center - 3 on the right and 3 on the left (affiliation / views / whatever you wish to call it).

If the review is granted and a deadlock / tie occurs with the justices the same thing will occur as if it were the FEderal US Supreme Court. The last court decision made prior to it coming to the Supreme Court will be the final say on the issue.

Im not sure if they will try to appeal federally if that occurs and if they do I dont think there will be enough time to get it resolved before the elections. Only option I could see would be an injunction against enforcing that law but who knows.

If they were really worried about identification, they would also say that two secondary forms of ID are ok.

I can't believe people here think it is ok to make people jumpt through hoops in order to vote.

If they required everyone to have to take the bus to get to the polling station to reduce a carbon footprint, you would be screaming murder and Nazi.

But that is exactly what you are doing to voters who don't have an ID.

The constitution specifically reports that you cannot abridge a person's right to vote. Requiring them to have a state ID is just that.

Just because the ID is made free does not mean that the voter still hasn't have to find alternate transportation to get to the DMV to get it.

The suit sought a preliminary injunction of the law, which is to take effect next month. It was filed on behalf of 10 Pennsylvanians facing difficulties obtaining the proper ID, including a 93-year-old woman who lost her only form of identification when her purse was stolen. Their lawyers said it was disturbing that Judge Simpson did not recognize the constitutional right to vote as sufficiently fundamental, especially because the state acknowledged that it had no evidence of voter fraud at polling stations.

I will retype for emphasis:

especially because the state acknowledged that it had no evidence of voter fraud at polling stations.

nytimes

So you just infringed on voter rights for tens of thousands of people because of your paranoia of illegal immigrants, whom most don't care to vote to begin with.

And what few fraud cases that were found, an ID would not of made a difference.

And yet you have the nerve to chastise people for wanting safety because of terrorism scares. Yet you fall for the voter fraud scare.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the law said the judge was taking too much on faith. Forms for alternate identification have not been finalized, and staffing of public agencies dealing with such things has not been increased. They also said absentee-ballot rules in Pennsylvania are stricter than Judge Simpson implied.

STellar

reply to post by luccadeo


Good job drinking the kool aid.

What voter fraud?

reply to post by kozmo


You provide two forms of secondary identification, like a social security card and birth certificate. That is what most teenagers have to do.


No wonder the morons who don't know anything support this.

reply to post by CT_Flyboy


The people who this sidelines, those with disabilities and who are poor, don't have credit cards.