Judge halts Pennsylvania’s voter ID law until after election day

posted at 3:21 pm on October 2, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Last March, Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett signed into law a bill, passed along party lines by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, that will require voters to show an ID issued by either the federal government, Pennsylvania, a higher-education institution, a municipal employer, or a care facility. Somehow, the common-sense ‘simply demonstrate that you’re a legal state resident’ law was branded as one of the more “controversial” and “restrictive” voter ID laws that various states are coming up with in an attempt to combat voter fraud (and which the DOJ has been steadily and dutifully suing, of course), and Democrats have been fighting it in court tooth-and-nail as a dastardly, partisan method of “disenfranchising” low-income, minority, and rural voters.

Although a judge upheld the law in August as “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,” the same court today deemed that implementing the law right now would be too soon to allow enough time for people to obtain IDs before the November election. Via Roll Call:

[The lower-court judge] was given until Oct. 2 to determine whether state officials were making an adequate effort to help voters without identification obtain necessary documentation before Election Day.

Though at the time of hearings last week there had been a “slight increase” in the issuance of drivers’ licenses during the last six months, almost 10,000 identification cards issued by the Department of Transportation and between 1,300 and 1,500 “safety net” cards issued by the Department of State, Simpson said the numbers weren’t high enough.

“I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time. For this reason, I accept petitioners’ argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed,” Simpson wrote.

The polls are already calling Pennsylvania’s purple 20 electoral votes for Obama this time around, and the Democrats are hailing the court’s decision as a victory that will keep Democratic turnout high:

Here’s the Obama campaign’s statement, attributed to Obama for America Pennsylvania Senior Advisor for Communications Desiree Peterkin-Bell:

“Today’s decision means one thing for Pennsylvanians: eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state. The right to vote and choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be an American. The President and his campaign are committed to making sure that every eligible voter, regardless of party, has the ability to make their voices heard and participate in the electoral process. …

Nothing yet from the Mitt Romney campaign, but Pennsyvlania Republican Party Chairman Robert Gleason was none to pleased about the decision:

“I am disappointed by today’s ruling to postpone the full implementation of a commonsense reform that helps protect the sanctity of our electoral process. …Voter ID is still Pennsylvania law, was found to be constitutional and we will work to encourage voters to bring their photo identification with them to the polls. Poll after poll has shown that Pennsylvanians from both political parties overwhelmingly support Voter ID legislation because, despite the empty rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is still about ensuring one person, one vote. …”

Why Democrats insist upon making voter ID laws into such a divisive partisan issue still defies all logic to me, since voter fraud can and does impact both parties in a negative way, the majority of Americans think voter fraud is a real problem, and any legitimate citizen needs an ID to do countless things in everyday life — but, yet again, “logic” doesn’t really seem to be the issue here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

And I love throwing Jim Crow in there. Yes, those laws created by democrats are the same thing as requiring an ID to vote. Exact same thing !!!!! 11!!!!!!

If you scream “Jim Crow” enough times, it makes it true.

Good lord. Leftists are dishonest, ignorant and absurd.

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

You got it Monkeytoe. Jim Crow laws were the invention of Democrats, and the biggest screamer against the Voting Rights Act was none other than Al Gore, Sr.

Here’s some history for you:

http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

itsspideyman on October 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Can anyone out there provide an argument that these laws will affect both parties equally? That’s the bottom line, and the one point that no one here seems interested in discussing.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

No, they don’t. I live in PA. There is no law requiring people to show ID when purchasing alcohol.
segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Really? In the days before photo ID driver’s licenses (which was pre-1983, I think), a person went to their local state liquor store the day after their 21st birthday to obtain … a photo ID … with their name, address and birthday on it to present to bartenders or the clerk at the local beer distributor. I still have mine. Of course, they were superseded by including photos on driver’s licenses, so no one needed a special one from the liquor store any more.

So there is not age requirement for purchasing alcohol in PA? There is no provision in the law for dealing with this?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

There is. It’s 21.

PatriotGal2257 on October 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Monkeytoe: Yes – a law that sets voting eligibility that effects one party differently than another is unconstitutional. Why do these conversations always reduce to name calling and insults, by the way?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

It affects Democrats more than Republicans because Democrats engage in voter fraud.

See MN, the ’60 presidential race. There are in fact numerous examples. Have you actually researched this?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Can anyone out there provide an argument that these laws will affect both parties equally? That’s the bottom line, and the one point that no one here seems interested in discussing.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

That’s quite a point. It shouldn’t affect either if neither are engaging in fraud.

itsspideyman on October 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Approx 21 million people eligible to vote dont have ID.

Approx 120 convictions for voter fraud since 2007.

http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

Now to those who are concerned about the votes of actual citizens I wonder do they have that same furor over Republican governors who tried to restrict early voting in Democratic counties while extending it in Republican counties?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/31/judge-blocks-ohio-law-restricting-early-voting/

Early voting expands opportunities to vote, enabling people who can’t get to the polls on Election Day to make their voices heard.

The GOP has reduced early voting periods in six states.
In Florida and Ohio, GOP legislation targets early voting on Sundays.
In 2008, African Americans represented 13% of all Florida voters but 31% of the total voters on the final Sunday of early voting.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-national/court-rejects-florida-bid-to-restrict-early-voting-days-649436/

Now in these cases its hundreds of thousands of people to be affected. So if voter ID is so important to persuade the couple of hundred of people from breaking the law then why are these governors trying to at the same time limit the right to vote of hundreds of thousands of people?

Doesn’t make sense.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Can anyone out there provide an argument that these laws will affect both parties equally? That’s the bottom line, and the one point that no one here seems interested in discussing.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Good question.

Look at first two lines of my post above.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Oh sh!t, I’m running out of talking points…

pms123

NapaConservative on October 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM

itsspideyman: Not true. Clearly more restrictive voter laws will lower turnout – some people will not able to or not be motivated enough to comply with the new laws. Are those people equally likely to be Democratic as Republican? Let’s hear the argument. And “Well those lazy SOB’s don’t deserve to vote anyway!” is not an argument. What will be the political makeup of those who will not vote as a result of these laws?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

The law remains constitutional (unfortunately – should be thrown out as a solution in search of a problem). What has changed is that the judge smartly delayed implementation until after this election. I live in PA, and the administration has done a terrible job at publicizing this and correcting issues with it.

My father-in-law can’t vote if it is implemented, even though he has voted in the same precinct for almost 30 years.
He gave up his driver’s license years ago – thank goodness, his macular degeneration made him a menace on the roads. He never had a passport or was in the armed forces. He has no utility or other bills to prove residence as he lives in assisted living for which I pay. He lost his wallet, and with it his Social Security card. I’m trying to help him, but so far no luck there.

But the worst is that he lost his birth certificate sometime in his 88 years. And the town he was born in has refused to issue a replacement – they had a fire and records from the 20s and 30s are gone.

Maybe I can fix this for him given time (and maybe I can’t), but there’s no chance to get it done by NOV 6 this year.

So because of perceived voter fraud – and that is what it is, perceived – he can’t vote for the 1st time since 1946? No way. Judge made the right decision.

And BTW – most actual voter fraud involves absentee ballots and this law does nothing to address that issue.

independentvoice on October 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Why do Democrats fight measures to help military personnel to cast votes?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Del: Have you heard of Jim Crow? Designing a law that discriminates is easy to do without having to express the discrimination in the text of the law. I’ll wait while you give me the argument that Republican candidates will lose as many votes as Democratic candidates under these laws. If that is not the case, then these laws are unconstitutional, as they effect different voting preferences differently, and hence they must be struck down. Convince me (and the court) that Democratic and Republican candidates will lose or gain the same number of votes a s result of these laws. I’ll wait…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

This would only be true if the law was specifically written to exclude Democrats, i.e. if you needed to take a 50 question multiple choice test about Ronald Reagan to vote. Poll taxes and literacy tests were unconstitutional because they were instituted for the sole purpose of disenfranchising black voters. Voter ID laws, meanwhile, are instituted to lessen voter fraud. Black voters have the same ability as white voters to get an ID, especially in states like PA with free voter ID programs.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Good Solid B-Plus: That’s exactly my point. These laws are as much written to exclude Democratic voters as the Jim Crow voting laws were meant to exclude Black voters. Again, give me the argument that these laws will not disproportionally affect Democratic voters. The working poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the working poor are surely the most affected by such laws. If you have a counter argument, by all means, let’s hear it…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Wow I’m shocked.

Next thing you know, the unemployment rate will be down to 7.9% for election day.

forest on October 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Boy – it got awfully quiet in here all of a sudden. Well, when you can provide the argument I mentioned, I’d love to hear it. I’ll check back…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Del: Have you heard of Jim Crow? Designing a law that discriminates is easy to do without having to express the discrimination in the text of the law. I’ll wait while you give me the argument that Republican candidates will lose as many votes as Democratic candidates under these laws. If that is not the case, then these laws are unconstitutional, as they effect different voting preferences differently, and hence they must be struck down. Convince me (and the court) that Democratic and Republican candidates will lose or gain the same number of votes a s result of these laws. I’ll wait…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

So then the law is racist not because it specifically mentions a race, but because YOU and other liberals believe minorities aren’t as smart or capable as whites when it comes to getting ID? I’ve noticed you’ve started saying minorities AND poor, but keep coming back to this law being racist thing. You are stating an opinion by saying it’s racist: That YOU don’t think minorities are capable of getting ID’s.

PastorJon on October 2, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Now on the flip side, for all the Republican minds out there in Hot Gas Land: Why dont you want those who are poor, bed stricken, and in possession of very few resources to be able to vote?

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

The law remains constitutional (unfortunately – should be thrown out as a solution in search of a problem). What has changed is that the judge smartly delayed implementation until after this election. I live in PA, and the administration has done a terrible job at publicizing this and correcting issues with it.

My father-in-law can’t vote if it is implemented, even though he has voted in the same precinct for almost 30 years.
He gave up his driver’s license years ago – thank goodness, his macular degeneration made him a menace on the roads. He never had a passport or was in the armed forces. He has no utility or other bills to prove residence as he lives in assisted living for which I pay. He lost his wallet, and with it his Social Security card. I’m trying to help him, but so far no luck there.

Use an absentee ballot. You have to mail in the request-cost one stamp. It gets mailed to you-validating your mailing address and providing some proof of residence. Then you mail it in to vote. 2nd stamp. Probably less than it would cost to drive to the polls.

Easy-peasy lemon sqeezy. My husband travels on business and just sent his in today.

Seriously, the only rational reason to oppose voter ID is to promote fraudulent voting and the election of candidates who depend on fraudulent voting.

talkingpoints on October 2, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The fact is as much noise as those on the right make about voter fraud actual cases of it is few and very far in between. Less then 1% of votes are cast fraduently in any election. I dont understand the underlying to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. I remember being 19, not having a car and working in food service AND not having a ID. To get a ID I needed my birth certificate which I also didnt have and/or my soical security card that I also didnt have. Both of these things were lost in a fire when I was young. I was born in D.C. and living in Seattle so I didnt know how to replace my birth certificate, and a new SSI was 35.00 but you had to be at the social security building between certains hours in order to get seen. Between my job and the bus route there was just not was I could make it during those hours. I didnt get a ID until I got my first car at 20 and I got a drivers license so I understand the problems and pitfalls with getting a ID and I agree with this judge that the couple of weeks we have before this election isnt enough time for those with limited resources to be able to get them as well.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

First, three points: (1) Senator Al Franken, Senate to Dems, Obamacare. (2) Florida, November, 2000, and a sliver of votes decides a Presidential election. (3) SCOTUS.

The AMOUNT of voter fraud is not the point. 1 Senator’s vote can tip a nation into oblivion. And if you didn’t have time or inclination to get ID, a birth certificate, etc., you are too dam lazy and irresponsible to deserve the wonderful republic in which you live. Move to Russia. There, they don’t have to even bother showing up. The election’s decided for them. There is NO excuse NOT to have accurate voting rolls, none, zero, zilch. NO excuse NOT to have ID to prove your eligibility to vote. NONE. Every state should have voter ID. If courts rule it disenfranchises voters, then GIVE the ID cards for free.

idalily on October 2, 2012 at 6:26 PM

If you do not have one of the documents above or cannot get a replacement within 10 work days, we may accept other documents that show your legal name and biographical information, such as a U.S. military identity card, Certificate of Naturalization, employee identity card, certified copy of medical record (clinic, doctor or hospital), health insurance card, Medicaid card, or school identity card/record. For young children, we may accept medical records (clinic, doctor, or hospital) maintained by the medical provider. We may also accept a final adoption decree, or a school identity card, or other school record maintained by the school.

http://ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

http://www.longdistancevoter.org/pennsylvania

Here are the apppropriate links for replacing SS cards and getting PA absentee ballots.

talkingpoints on October 2, 2012 at 6:31 PM

And as Florida proved in 2000, it takes less than 400 fraudulent votes to change a presidential election.

My question is this: Why aren’t there thousands of documented cases of people voting as other people? Becuase it’s extremely hard to track WITHOUT voter ID laws. How do you go back and prove that somebody voted twice as two different people? Liberals are asking us to prove a negative: that there was voter fraud when no effective system was in place to catch it. When you can walk into a polling place, give the name of a neighbor that died a few weeks earlier, maybe even a name supplied to you by your local ACORN affiliate, get a ballot and vote, how are we supposed to prove that except by going ballot by ballot against death records, etc. Or if the name supplied is somebody who really doesn’t even exist? The guy who nailed ACORN has been going around the country successfully registering dogs, dead people, etc.

“Hi, I’m Rufus Barkerton! Ballot please!” “Sure Mr Barkerton, no need to show ID, I see your name right here!”

It doesn’t help when you have county clerks, like the one convicted of vote tampering in the 2004 Washington governor’s race, of the party that benefits. In that case, King’s County suddenly, out of nowhere, had hundreds of extra votes for the Democrat. It was later proved that the ballots were frauds, but the GOP candidate had already stopped challenging it.

Dozens of statewide elections and one presidential election have been decided by a few hundred votes in the last 12 years. To argue that out of hundreds of thousands of votes there couldn’t be 500 caught by voter ID laws is burying your head in the sand.

PastorJon on October 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Boy – it got awfully quiet in here all of a sudden. Well, when you can provide the argument I mentioned, I’d love to hear it. I’ll check back…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:12 PM

What argument? It’s a complete strawman. I want no voter fraud, whether it’s Republican or Democrat. We’re fighting voter fraud, not disenfranchising anyone.

Please find one real person who will post on here (through you, if necessary) and tell us they are unable to get a government issued ID, what state it is, and why they cannot get one.

Until then, your disenfranchisement argument is nothing, as are most Leftist “but it’s for the CHILLLLLLLDREN” arguments.

AJsDaddie on October 2, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Again, give me the argument that these laws will not disproportionally affect Democratic voters. The working poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the working poor are surely the most affected by such laws. If you have a counter argument, by all means, let’s hear it…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Talk about twisted logic. The right is to have equal opportunity to vote. The U.S. has rules that govern who is allowed to vote. Only in the warped logic of democrats do common sense requirements to show that each voter meets those requirements become an impediment to voting. A poll tax was an impediment because the poor couldn’t afford to pay it. States with ID requirements make them available to all. That it impacts people differently, doesn’t negate the need to have honest elections. If the democratic party is concerned for the working poor, then they’ll start program to get them IDs, just like they bus people from parks, tell them how to vote, and pay for their lunch–yes, I lived in Chicago.

In order to have confidence in our elected leaders, we must also have confidence in the election process. Fraud is happening, and to deny it is to live in a democratic dreamland. Here is an article from today, I even made it an accusation of Republican fraud. It is clear from case after case we have people voting who are dead, senile, suffering from dementia, and others who are voting in multiple states. Everyone benefits from fair elections.

STL_Vet on October 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Less then 1% of votes are cast fraduently in any election. I dont understand the underlying to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

1% swing in votes (less than 400) in Florida and we have Al Gore for President. That’s a scary thought.

1% of votes got us Al Franken and Obamacare, with the largest tax increase in American history about to hit us in January.

1% of votes got Washington a horrible governor.

PastorJon on October 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM

One of the primary reasons for the distorted polls is to set the stage for voter fraud. If we go into the election with all swing states showing significant leads for Romney and yet Obama wins, there will be massive investigation into voter fraud.

There is no question that voter fraud will be attempted. The issue is how to stop it. We need not only stricter voter ID laws, but stricter punishment for fraud. Any person caught attempting voter fraud should be charged with a felony and imprisoned if guilty. Any person who doesn’t fight forcefully for voter ID is an enemy of the country; it’s about as close to modern day treason as possible. Can’t put it any plainer.

Remember, every fraudulent votes disenfranchises a lawful voter. So the big, loud voices against disenfranchisement ought to be fighting for toughening voter ID laws, not loosening them. And if your primary argument against voter ID is that your party gets hurt worse, then you’re not even worth talking to because clearly your affiliation to party trumps your affiliation to America.

AJsDaddie on October 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Still no argument, I see. I thought not.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Still no argument, I see. I thought not.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

That is the problem. You thought. Not.

STL_Vet on October 2, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Less then 1% of votes are cast fraduently in any election. I dont understand the underlying to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Ok, lets accept that…Why do the usual suspects pee all over themselves when ever these laws are passed.

BigWyo on October 2, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Ok, how about we pass a law saying that people with an income over $250,000 a year have to show ID to vote? That would certainly reduce fraud, right? Making voting laws stricter in ANY way will reduce fraud, I’m sure you’ll all agree. And the wealthy can certainly get ID more easily than the poor. How about that idea? No? Why not? Because the poor cheat more than the rich!?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Pretty tough to tell how much voter fraud there is when the system is as anarchic as it is now. And that’s the way the Democrats want to keep it so they can keep cheating. I’m tired of being disenfranchised by cheating cheaters cancelling out my vote.

forest on October 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Why did the delegates have to show id at the democratic convention in order to vote? What if a delegate didn’t have an id? I guess that’s different. Probably no minorities or poor at the convention anyway, so nothing to worry about there.

STL_Vet on October 2, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Let’s see- you need a photo ID to get on an airplane, to get a driver’s license (most places), to fill out a passport or a college admission application, to enter the building you work (in many cases) but to attend an Obama event-you need TWO PHOTO IDS. Why don’t you need an ID to vote? Because 100% of voter fraud is committed by Democrats-that’s why!! And, who knows? The Democrats have a superb BS artist who has the simpletons bamboozled, the Republican candidate is a wimp who would rather quit than confront but, just in case, as insurance, they’d love to have a couple of thousand extra votes in key precincts.

MaiDee on October 2, 2012 at 10:55 PM

I’ve lost all respect for the judicial branch of our government. From Chief Justice John Roberts rewriting the ObamaCare legislation to rulings like this one, they are not based on the law, but on politics. And sadly, the Republicans are too timid and impotent to reel the judges in and smack them down.

RJL on October 2, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Still no argument, I see. I thought not.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Your arguments have been addressed multiple times. Your only response to these arguments has been “Look – no arguments!”.

Go back and read the 3 pages of this thread. You have been responded to by multiple people. You don’t agree with what they said? Then counter-argue. Claiming that your issues haven’t been addressed when they clearly have makes you seem disingenuous.

gwelf on October 3, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Ok, how about we pass a law saying that people with an income over $250,000 a year have to show ID to vote?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I think this post reveals your true agenda–you’re not for helping the poor–you just have an axe to grind against the wealthy.

zoyclem on October 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Just curious; can we now challenge the law stating proof must be shown to purchase alcohol and cigarettes? Cash a check? How about waiving them to enter federal buildings, you know, because by extension those are also discriminatory against people that don’t have identification.

I certainly hope they now put their energy into identifying people voting that are not eligible post-election. Because very few things are more despicable than corrupting our right to vote.

Marcus Traianus on October 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Interesting that the right to bear arms requires an ID and background check. Minorities and democrats are underrepresented in the non-ID population for this important right just as for voting, but democrats seem not to care. Apparently, exercising a right can include uniform legal requirements even if there is disparate impact. Go figure.

STL_Vet on October 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Simply have the illegals dip their finger in an inkwell so they can only vote once! Problem solved!!

Oh Wait….

Bulletchaser on October 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

first of all let me say my entire family qualifies as the “working poor” and we do not vote democrat not one of us . So maybe you should rethink some of your arguements , because unfortunately the ones you are presenting here are a complete wash. Second of all if requireing ID to buy alcohol isnt unconstitutional then neither is requireing ID to vote , and before you call up that tripe about no ID law in PA for buying alcohol may i remind you that FEDERAL LAW requires that anyone who does not appear to be over the age of 30 must be asked for ID. so that arguement there is also patently false. so far all i have seen from you is blathering liberal talking points that have no actual basis in fact or logic. so please either come up with a truly well thought out arguement with a basis in ACTUAL reality and grounded by common sense or cease and desist annoying those of us who know you to be the troll that you truly are

katee bayer on October 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

For a true and substantiated case of fraud watch the above. Oh and by the way, theese same people failed to provide evidence in court that voter fraud actually exists.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Or you could just look at who the Democrat party submits as candidates?….

You fail at trolling mo-lester.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-democrat-quits-congressional-race-amid-vote-fraud-allegations/2012/09/10/d0ff9b1e-fb73-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_blog.html

StompUDead on October 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Seems you can not fart in public today without picture ID, but you can vote.

Wade on October 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

“Today’s decision means one thing for Pennsylvanians: in-eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state.”

FIFY

GWB on October 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3