PDA

View Full Version : Elections Breaking: Judge halts Pa.'s tough new voter ID requirement.


Direckshun
10-02-2012, 08:45 AM
And reason finds a way in Pennsylvania.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-halts-pa-tough-voter-id-requirement-135928620.html

Judge halts Pa.'s tough new voter ID requirement
By MARC LEVY
10 mins ago..

..HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania's divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect before Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

Simpson ordered the state not to enforce the photo ID requirement in this year's presidential election but will allow it to go into full effect next year.

One lawyer for the plaintiffs said it appeared to be a "win." Election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can vote on a regular voting machine in the polling place and would not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials after the election.

His ruling came after listening to two days of testimony about the state's eleventh-hour efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID. He also heard about long lines and ill-informed clerks at driver's license centers and identification requirements that made it hard for some registered voters to get a state-issued photo ID.

The 6-month-old law — now among the nation's toughest — has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights and become a high-profile political issue in the contest between President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, for Pennsylvania's prized 20 electoral votes.

Pennsylvania, traditionally considered one of the most valuable a presidential swing states, is showing a persistent lead for Obama in independent polls. As a result, the state has been virtually empty of presidential TV ads and off the candidates' beaten paths to more contested states in recent weeks.

Pollsters had said Pennsylvania's identification requirement could mean that fewer people ended up voting and, in the past, lower turnouts have benefited Republicans in Pennsylvania.

But Democrats have used their opposition to the law as a rallying cry, turning it into a valuable tool to motivate volunteers and campaign contributions while other opponents of the law, including labor unions, good government groups, the NAACP, AARP and the League of Women Voters, hold voter education drives and protest rallies.

The voter ID law was a signature accomplishment of Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature and its Republican governor, Tom Corbett. Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, justified it as a bulwark against any potential election fraud.

Democrats objected furiously, accusing Republicans of using old-fashioned Jim Crow tactics to steal the White House from Obama by making it harder for young adults, the poor, minorities and the disabled to vote.

Protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives ensued, as the law's opponents began collecting stories of people who had no valid photo ID and had encountered stiff barriers in their efforts to get one from state driver's license centers.

It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

A wave of new voter identification requirements have been approved in the past couple years, primarily by Republican-controlled Legislatures.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in 2008, and Georgia's top court upheld that state's voter ID law. But a federal court panel struck down Texas' voter ID law, and the state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire's voter ID law earlier this year, and a federal court is reviewing South Carolina's law.

The plaintiffs — a group of registered voters, plus the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — had sought to block the law from taking effect in this year's election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.

The constitutionality of the law was not a question before Simpson.

Rather, the state Supreme Court had ordered him to stop the law if he thought anyone eligible would be unable to cast a ballot because of it or if he found the state had not complied with law's promise of providing liberal access to a photo ID that voters were required to carry on Election Day.

Last week, the Corbett administration overhauled the process for getting a voting-only ID card — an admission that the state had not met the Supreme Court's test for the whether the law should stand.

Saulbadguy
10-02-2012, 10:51 AM
VICTORY

vailpass
10-02-2012, 11:40 AM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

La literatura
10-02-2012, 11:51 AM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

vailpass had already gotten used to the idea that Obama was going to win PA even with the law in effect.

Garcia Bronco
10-02-2012, 01:05 PM
It's ridiculious to oppose this kind of law to help ensure the integrity of the process. Putting the law into place the year of an election is also wrong.

jiveturkey
10-02-2012, 01:10 PM
It's ridiculious to oppose this kind of law to help ensure the integrity of the process. Putting the law into place the year of an election is also wrong.These types of laws remind me of the Bush years when all of the super libs I knew constantly bitched about voting machines and wondering why people opposed audits/paper trails.

Cave Johnson
10-02-2012, 01:11 PM
vailpass had already gotten used to the idea that Obama was going to win PA even with the law in effect.

I was assured he would win the Commonwealth.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:19 PM
It's just a delay, right? It will go into effect next year? So, the Democrats get the benefit of loose requirements and potential voter fraud one last time.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
It's just a delay, right? It will go into effect next year? So, the Democrats get the benefit of loose requirements and potential voter fraud one last time.

What are the benefits of potential voter fraud?

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
What are the benefits of potential voter fraud?

Winning elections.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Winning elections.

Potential anything produces nothing, including results in outcomes.

J Diddy
10-02-2012, 02:38 PM
It's just a delay, right? It will go into effect next year? So, the Democrats get the benefit of loose requirements and potential voter fraud one last time.

Exactly and the Republicans don't have to shred all of Nathan Sproul's registrations.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:43 PM
Potential anything produces nothing, including results in outcomes.

No, potential produces the possibility of voter fraud.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:54 PM
No, potential produces the possibility of voter fraud.

No, that's just a circular argument.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:56 PM
No, that's just a circular argument.

No, it isn't. Do you agree that requiring photo ID would reduce the possibility of voter fraud?

Garcia Bronco
10-02-2012, 03:05 PM
No, it isn't. Do you agree that requiring photo ID would reduce the possibility of voter fraud?

I do, I think the real culprit though is the ID aquiring process.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:08 PM
No, it isn't. Do you agree that requiring photo ID would reduce the possibility of voter fraud?

It's a circular argument. "Potential voter fraud" is the same thing as "possibility of voter fraud." You just argued that the former produces the latter. It'd be the same as saying, "We should get rid of potential voter fraud because it causes potential voter fraud, and potential voter fraud produces voter fraud." But it doesn't. Something "in potential" does not produce anything. Voter fraud is caused by fraud in the election process, but never [currently non-existing because it is potential] fraud.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:09 PM
It's a circular argument. "Potential voter fraud" is the same thing as "possibility of voter fraud." You just argued that the former produces the latter. It'd be the same as saying, "We should get rid of potential voter fraud because it causes potential voter fraud, and potential voter fraud produces voter fraud." But it doesn't. Something "in potential" does not produce anything. Voter fraud is caused by fraud in the election process, but never [currently non-existing because it is potential] fraud.

That's the longest "yes" I've ever seen.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:10 PM
That's the longest "yes" I've ever seen.

You're wrong in thinking that was a "yes."

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:15 PM
You're wrong in thinking that was a "yes."

I realize that you believe that.

Requiring photo ID will help prevent people who shouldn't be voting from casting a ballot. I don't care if it's only one ballot cast illegally.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:21 PM
I realize that you believe that.

Requiring photo ID will help prevent people who shouldn't be voting from casting a ballot. I don't care if it's only one ballot cast illegally.

That might be what you wanted to say, but that's not what you did say. You did say that Democrats get a benefit from potential voter fraud. If there's a benefit from voter fraud, it's only from actual voter fraud, never from potential voter fraud.

And then you talked about how potential voter fraud leads to the possibility of voter fraud, which is logically nonsense.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:26 PM
That might be what you wanted to say, but that's not what you did say. You did say that Democrats get a benefit from potential voter fraud. If there's a benefit from voter fraud, it's only from actual voter fraud, never from potential voter fraud.

And then you talked about how potential voter fraud leads to the possibility of voter fraud, which is logically nonsense.

Excellent, so you acknowledge that Democrats are more likely to benefit from voter fraud than Republicans, correct?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Excellent, so you acknowledge that Democrats are more likely to benefit from voter fraud than Republicans, correct?

No, I can't verify the truth of that statement. I can verify that that's a question that doesn't contain any logical fallacies. You are making progress.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:33 PM
No, I can't verify the truth of that statement. I can verify that that's a question that doesn't contain any logical fallacies. You are making progress.

Ah, so you think that Democrats fight these measures purely for altruistic reasons?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Ah, so you think that Democrats fight these measures purely for altruistic reasons?

No, I think Democrats fought the measures because they threatened to shut out actual citizens' ability to vote. I also think that's why Republicans introduced these measures: to shut out actual citizens' ability to vote under the pretext of voter fraud prevention.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:40 PM
No, I think Democrats fought the measures because they threatened to shut out actual citizens' ability to vote most likely for the Democrat candidate. I also think that's why Republicans introduced these measures: to shut out actual citizens' ability to vote under the pretext of voter fraud prevention.

FYP.

To your credit, at least you acknowledge that Democrats care about this issue because it will hurt them.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:43 PM
FYP.

To your credit, at least you acknowledge that Democrats care about this issue because it will hurt them.

And to your credit, you realize that Republicans pursued this because it would have helped them.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:48 PM
And to your credit, you realize that Republicans pursued this because it would have helped them.

Yes, a nice bonus while preventing illegal voting. It's not the GOP's fault that the Democrats want illegal votes.

I'd rather be on my side, honestly.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Yes, a nice bonus while preventing illegal voting. It's not the GOP's fault that the Democrats want illegal votes.

I'd rather be on my side, honestly.

Republicans should be more honest like this. Maybe there will be another video of Mitt Romney saying something like, "Yes, this is a good way to prevent some undefined illegal voting that doesn't appear to happen much in-person. And preventing blacks, Hispanics, and old people from voting is a nice bonus, too!"

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:53 PM
Republicans should be more honest like this. Maybe there will be another video of Mitt Romney saying something like, "Yes, this is a good way to prevent some undefined illegal voting that doesn't appear to happen much in-person. And preventing blacks, Hispanics, and old people from voting is a nice bonus, too!"

I don't care what color they are. If they aren't legally-eligible to vote, they shouldn't be voting and they shouldn't be empowered to vote.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:55 PM
I don't care what color they are. If they aren't legally-eligible to vote, they shouldn't be voting and they shouldn't be empowered to vote.

Huh? Do you know what the issue with these new laws is?

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Huh? Do you know what the issue with these new laws is?

Yes.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Yes.

Because you seemed to have mixed the "Hispanics, blacks, and old people" with the "illegal voters" as if they were one and the same.

Not all blacks and Hispanics and old people are illegal citizens. Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:06 PM
Because you seemed to have mixed the "Hispanics, blacks, and old people" with the "illegal voters" as if they were one and the same.

Not all blacks and Hispanics and old people are illegal citizens. Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Yes, it's clear, but I am curious why you neglected to mention White people in that little rant.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 04:07 PM
These types of laws remind me of the Bush years when all of the super libs I knew constantly bitched about voting machines and wondering why people opposed audits/paper trails.

It's not just libs that are opposed to voting machines aka black box voting, many conservatives are too. Actually, it's a bi-partisan issue. There's no way to authenticate an election with voting machines. The SC in Germany struck them down for this reason. There must be a way for the public to authenticate an election where the counting can be seen by the public or a representative. There needs to be a grassroots movement on these things.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:22 PM
Yes, it's clear, but I am curious why you neglected to mention White people in that little rant.

Because Republicans don't seem to want to disenfranchise white people.

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:25 PM
Because Republicans don't seem to want to disenfranchise white people.

I'm confused. You think that poor White people aren't included in the disenfranchised? Poor White people can somehow get access to photo IDs more readily than poor Blacks (or Hispanics)?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:29 PM
I'm confused. You think that poor White people aren't included in the disenfranchised? Poor White people can somehow get access to photo IDs more readily than poor Blacks (or Hispanics)?

Probably not. Is it a nice bonus for you when poor white people can't vote? What are your thoughts on that?

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:31 PM
Probably not. Is it a nice bonus for you when poor white people can't vote? What are your thoughts on that?

Then I'm confused still. Why did you not include poor White people in that grouping?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:33 PM
Then I'm confused still. Why did you not include poor White people in that grouping?

I never intended to list all the groups that Republicans apparently would like to disenfranchise.

penchief
10-02-2012, 04:34 PM
It's not just libs that are opposed to voting machines aka black box voting, many conservatives are too. Actually, it's a bi-partisan issue. There's no way to authenticate an election with voting machines. The SC in Germany struck them down for this reason. There must be a way for the public to authenticate an election where the counting can be seen by the public or a representative. There needs to be a grassroots movement on these things.

You and I agree on something.

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:35 PM
I never intended to list all the groups that Republicans apparently would like to disenfranchise.

But you specifically mentioned Blacks and Hispanics. Why did you pick those two and not poor Whites? Do you not care about poor White people?

mlyonsd
10-02-2012, 04:39 PM
Sounds like the law will stand, just not for the 2012 election. That sounds fair, I'm good with that.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 04:42 PM
You and I agree on something.

Don't forget we did on Iraq too. Here's something else: these machines are manufacture by the very same multinational corporations that are feeding at the govt trough too.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:43 PM
But you specifically mentioned Blacks and Hispanics. Why did you pick those two and not poor Whites? Do you not care about poor White people?

If you would like, from now on, I will let you choose the in-exhaustive list of sample demographics you want to include when we talk about the disenfranchised people who are a "nice bonus" to your pretextual voter ID laws.

Or I can just put "et al." behind some demographics, and we can let the reader estimate what other groups you feel its a nice bonus to disenfranchise.

What option do you like better?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:44 PM
Donger believes it's a nice bonus to disenfranchise Blacks, Hispanics, Old People, et. al.

Donger believes it's a nice bonus to disenfranchise Poor White People, Blacks, and Old People.

What is your preference?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:51 PM
Yes, it's clear, but I am curious why you neglected to mention White people in that little rant.

It should be more than clear why I mentioned only blacks, Hispanics, and old people in that post: I had mentioned those groups only in my prior post with the made-up Romney quote.

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:54 PM
If you would like, from now on, I will let you choose the in-exhaustive list of sample demographics you want to include when we talk about the disenfranchised people who are a "nice bonus" to your pretextual voter ID laws.

Or I can just put "et al." behind some demographics, and we can let the reader estimate what other groups you feel its a nice bonus to disenfranchise.

What option do you like better?

I'm happy when any person is prevented from voting who isn't legally-eligible. I'm sure you are, too, no?

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:54 PM
Donger believes it's a nice bonus to disenfranchise Blacks, Hispanics, Old People, et. al.

Donger believes it's a nice bonus to disenfranchise Poor White People, Blacks, and Old People.

What is your preference?

See above.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:55 PM
I'm happy when any person is prevented from voting who isn't legally-eligible. I'm sure you are, too, no?

Can you tell me what you think the Democrats' issue with the new voter ID laws was?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:56 PM
See above.

See above, what? Are you backtracking on your "nice bonus" comment?

"Yes, a nice bonus while preventing illegal voting."

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:57 PM
It should be more than clear why I mentioned only blacks, Hispanics, and old people in that post: I had mentioned those groups only in my prior post with the made-up Romney quote.

That isn't clear at all, sorry. For whatever reason, you specifically mentioned Blacks and Hispanics, while not mentioning any other race (such as the one to which you belong).

I'm just trying to ascertain why you did that.

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:58 PM
See above, what? Are you backtracking on your "nice bonus" comment?

"Yes, a nice bonus while preventing illegal voting."

Not at all. I think it's great that the majority of those people potentially casting votes illegally are Democrats.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:58 PM
Donger, do you think that post-Reconstruction southern laws requiring voter education is most accurately stated as: a) a pretext to disenfranchise blacks; b) a desire to create a more educated electorate that happened to have the nice bonus of disenfranchising blacks, or c) a desire to create a more educated electorate that neglected to think at all about the consequences to blacks?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:59 PM
That isn't clear at all, sorry. For whatever reason, you specifically mentioned Blacks and Hispanics, while not mentioning any other race (such as the one to which you belong).

I'm just trying to ascertain why you did that.

Because my hypothetical Mitt Romney quote only contained blacks, Hispanics, and old people (of every race).

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:59 PM
Not at all. I think it's great that the majority of those people potentially casting votes illegally are Democrats.

Can you tell me what you think the Democrats' issue with the new voter ID laws was?

Donger
10-02-2012, 05:00 PM
Can you tell me what you think the Democrats' issue with the new voter ID laws was?

Yes, they don't like the new law because it's going to hurt them at the polls. I think a much smaller issue is that it "disenfranchises" those Blacks and Hispanics (the altruistic aspect which you've acknowledged isn't the reason Democrats oppose it).

Donger
10-02-2012, 05:01 PM
Because my hypothetical Mitt Romney quote only contained blacks, Hispanics, and old people (of every race).

Yes, I'm aware that you specifically neglected to include Whites.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 05:05 PM
Yes, they don't like the new law because it's going to hurt them at the polls. I think a much smaller issue is that it "disenfranchises" those Blacks and Hispanics (the altruistic aspect which you've acknowledged isn't the reason Democrats oppose it).

Oh, I think you've misunderstood at least two important points:

1) The fact that it disenfranchises legal citizens who tend to vote Democrat is the big issue
2) I completely acknowledge that reason (1) is the reason Democrats oppose the law

Since you misunderstood that much, I am now thinking that you misunderstood this conversation, and you do not think that disenfranchising blacks, Hispanics, old people, and other similarly situated demographics who are legal citizens but would vote Democratic is a "nice bonus." Please correct if I'm wrong.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 05:06 PM
Yes, I'm aware that you specifically neglected to include Whites.

And do you think that my hypothetical Mitt Romney quote was intended to list all groups that you would like to disenfranchise?

Donger
10-02-2012, 05:13 PM
Oh, I think you've misunderstood at least two important points:

1) The fact that it disenfranchises legal citizens who tend to vote Democrat is the big issue
2) I completely acknowledge that reason (1) is the reason Democrats oppose the law

Since you misunderstood that much, I am now thinking that you misunderstood this conversation, and you do not think that disenfranchising blacks, Hispanics, old people, and other similarly situated demographics who are legal citizens but would vote Democratic is a "nice bonus." Please correct if I'm wrong.

I appreciate your honesty. It's nice to hear a Democrat be so honest.

While I think it's a shame that your party has so many people who are either unwilling or incapable of getting photo ID to prove their eligibility to legally vote, that really isn't my problem. It's your and the DNC's problem. I'd rather that everyone (regardless of skin color, including Whites) who is eligible to vote can vote, but I think that preventing voter fraud trumps some Black or Hispanic person complaining about the burden of getting a photo ID.

Donger
10-02-2012, 05:14 PM
And do you think that my hypothetical Mitt Romney quote was intended to list all groups that you would like to disenfranchise?

I don't know. I just know it didn't include poor Whites. It did specifically mention Blacks and Hispanics, however.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 05:16 PM
I appreciate your honesty. It's nice to hear a Democrat be so honest.

While I think it's a shame that your party has so many people who are either unwilling or incapable of getting photo ID to prove their eligibility to legally vote, that really isn't my problem. It's your and the DNC's problem. I'd rather that everyone (regardless of skin color, including Whites) who is eligible to vote can vote, but I think that preventing voter fraud trumps some Black or Hispanic person complaining about the burden of getting a photo ID.

I am in favor of a national voting ID, but I'm not in favor of implementing that mandate during the election year. I think it would be an acceptable thing to do next year. I believe that Republicans pushed for it this year for the main purpose of disenfranchising minorities and other demographics that tend to vote Democrat.

Donger
10-02-2012, 05:23 PM
I am in favor of a national voting ID, but I'm not in favor of implementing that mandate during the election year. I think it would be an acceptable thing to do next year. I believe that Republicans pushed for it this year for the main purpose of disenfranchising minorities and other demographics that tend to vote Democrat.

And poor White people.

tiptap
10-02-2012, 05:29 PM
Almost all voting fraud takes place by absentee balloting. Nothing was done to address this. Voter ID or not. If you are incensed, it is misplaced to focus at the voting box and onsite voting.