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

It’s harder to catch cheaters when you don’t know who they are.

NapaConservative on October 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

In that case, I hope enough Pennsylvania Republicans are willing to vote twice in order to offset the Union cheating.

dczombie on October 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Jim Crow!!1111

wargamer6 on October 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Why Democrats insist upon making voter ID laws into such a divisive partisan issue still defies all logic to me

I assume you were being facetious. If not, I have a 3-word explanation for why Democrats don’t want voter ID laws: Senator Al Franken

Doughboy on October 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

If you need a photo ID to buy a forty, or need a photo ID to get into an Obama rally, or cash a check, and a lot more normal everyday stuff…

Never mind…asking people to produce an ID to vote is racist.

I shoulda known.

Sorry.

coldwarrior on October 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Once again, a judge enables vote fraud.

WannabeAnglican on October 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Just don’t expect any help from Democrats getting ID’s to help make you a more self-reliant contributing member to society.

The Count on October 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

the liberal “logic” is that there are far more dishonest voters that will vote for Mr. Downgrade than Romney, so by all means, let’s help them.

kirkill on October 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Why Democrats insist upon making voter ID laws into such a divisive partisan issue still defies all logic to me,

Because they know the vast majority of illegal votes will be cast for Democrats. That’s why. It’s a no brainer.

ButterflyDragon on October 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I bet that the dicktatorial, Statist bastards would love an Auschwitz style tattoo, or maybe an all-emcompassing ID chip, inserted at birth.

But, a driver’s license, et al., no way … too troublesome. Too complicated. Too unfair, right now.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I don’t know what to say. In Dallas County, we have almost 10,000 dead voters still on the roll. They will not be purged prior to election day because our elections department “doesn’t have the man power”. It’s maddening.

parteagirl on October 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The fact this is even an issue makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Yes, it is common sense to expect people to prove they’re who they say they are when casting a vote. And no, it’s not a burden for anyone to get one. If you cannot, maybe voting shouldn’t be a huge priority in your life anyway.

changer1701 on October 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

It’s not that people can’t produce an ID, it’s that the name on their ID usually doesn’t match the name they claim to vote under on the voting ledger.

NapaConservative on October 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

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

Uh yeah, you just might want to rethink that one.

PackerBronco on October 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I eagerly await more of libfree’s expert victim analysis of this genius ruling.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

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.

They’re just protecting the voting rights of Deceased Americans everywhere.

tom on October 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

It’s time that Judges start putting party affiliation on the ballot so we can vote the bums out!

kirkill on October 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Bad news. Very bad. Philthadelphia may once again decide PA 2012.

petefrt on October 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

There are millions of people out there without valid photo IDs who cannot get valid ones. They’re called illegals.

And actually round here, the smart illegals can get photo IDs anyway.

So who are we worried about? Subnormal illegals? Well there’s a core Democrat Party demographic.

CorporatePiggy on October 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM

As a PA resident, I intend to stop at the sporting goods store on the way home tonight to purchase a firearm.

When the clerk asks for ID, I will simply cite this judge’s ruling that I just don’t have enough time to get one.

CurtZHP on October 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM

It’s harder to catch cheaters when you don’t know who they are.

They have no intention of catching cheaters. After all, they represent a significant dem voting bloc.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Because they know the vast majority of illegal votes will be cast for Democrats. That’s why. It’s a no brainer.

ButterflyDragon on October 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Few things the Democrat party stands for are “brainers.”

Dopenstrange on October 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I’ll bet you that you need ID to get into this judge’s courtroom.

Chip on October 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM

All you need to know about the Voter ID issue. This part sums it up.

All the way home on the bus Thursday, she kept her pocketbook open on her lap, glancing down over and over again to smile at the ID card. A fellow rider commented on how happy she looked.

“I really am,” Applewhite replied. “Happy as a clam.”

Lead plaintiff in Pennsylvania voter ID case gets her photo ID

LoganSix on October 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Hey, check it out! Jimmy Hoffa just voted for Obama! She looks kinda young though.

perroviejo on October 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I ain’t got no ID obama voter

OhEssYouCowboys on October 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

“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.

So the judge assumed there would be an increase in the numbers of people suddenly seeking ID’s just to vote. Could it be that there wasn’t a spike because most people already have an ID? Nah, that couldn’t be it. He had to create a solution in search of a problem.

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2012 at 3:36 PM

It’s time that Judges start putting party affiliation on the ballot so we can vote the bums out!
kirkill on October 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

He was a former trial lawyer. Knock me over with a feather.

The Count on October 2, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I have had enough!

Tangerinesong on October 2, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I’ll bet you that you need ID to get into this judge’s courtroom.

That’s a bet you’d win, but of course access to the ballot box should’t be impeded by a trifling thing such as a valid ID.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Over/under for the judge being a Democrat?

Archivarix on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The cemetary-voting bloc approves.

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win.

- Mike Turzai

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

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Blah blah Obama fluffer.

wargamer6 on October 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Lets see, the law was passed six months ago and the judge says it will be constitutional after this election but not before this election. Is this another judge legislating from the bench? If so this judge has overstepped his authority and should be remove from the bench. Corruption in the judiciary is out of hand and needs to be addressed immediately.

savage24 on October 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The keystone state:
Needing ID to Vote:
Not OK.
Black Panther Voter Intimidation:
Just Fine.
Ben Franklin rolling in his grave. If Obama is elected to a second term, his words “A Republic, if you can keep it” will have been answered with a resounding NO.

djtnt on October 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Romney is unlikely to win PA anyway, so it is more the principle of the thing.

Is this the same judge who had ruled for the voter ID law before?

bayview on October 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Illegal aliens would never break the law.

Bishop on October 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I bet the 3 or 4 people in all of Pennsylvania who were intending to vote fraudulently are laughing really hard now.

Dave Rywall on October 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I wish it was 1980……

http://youtu.be/RmmgVFByeaI

PappyD61 on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 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

Is there a point to your post?

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I think Democrats make a good point. More poor people would be affected by these new voter ID laws then the laws themselves would correct.

______

A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity, including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation.

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/cases-voter-id-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent
——————————-

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

Every state where liberal judges carry water for Ogabe and Democrats should introduce life sentence without parole for voting law violations. It will make some crooks think twice, and possibly reconsider. Nobody wants take one THAT large for the team.

Archivarix on October 2, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I dont argue against fraud and attempts at fraud occur as evidence by this girl trying to register only Mitt Romney voters below

http://club937.com/mitt-romney-voters-playing-dirty-girl-gets-caught-registering-only-romney-supporters-video/

But I also dont think that its such a wide spread issue that we need to change the way weve been voting over the last 50-60 years.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:48 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

“will ALLOW Romney to win”. In other words, Romney would be allowed to win in a fair election.

DethMetalCookieMonst on October 2, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

We don’t have that many forcible rapes of minors, too. Why do we bother even prosecuting these cases if there are so few of them?

Archivarix on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Is there a point to your post?

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Apart from GOP passing laws and openly admitting they do so to force a Romney win, and they can’t even produce evidence of voter fraud? No.

Apparently winner should be regulated rather than voted to office and that’s fine by you.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I can’t buy CLR or drain cleaner at my Home Depot without showing an ID and signing a ledger which ID’s who I am…

But hey, let’s let anybody vote, once, twice or as a felon or an illegal…great country we live in…

PatriotRider on October 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Voter ID laws aren’t about the here-and-now – they’re about the soon-to-be, when The Commie gets re-elected and illegals become legals … and want to vote for another Caretaker and Babysitter.

Half of the voting Americans are nothing but thumbsuckers, needing a diaper change. Oh, and a cellphone; but no ID.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 2, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Well, we can have a fair election is Obummer is running. If you don’t vote for him, you’re a racist anyways. we have to allow the dead, the illegal and the ineligible to vote blah blah blah. Corruption, thy name is Democrat.

Jason Taylor Sacked You on October 2, 2012 at 3:52 PM

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Like Franken!

wargamer6 on October 2, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Leftists can’t ever win in the arena of ideas. They have to resort to cheating, intimidation or packing the courts and having one of their crooked judges rule in their favor.

See: Obamacare.

Right Mover on October 2, 2012 at 3:54 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

Oh really? Tell me more.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Apart from GOP passing laws and openly admitting they do so to force a Romney win, and they can’t even produce evidence of voter fraud? No.

Apparently winner should be regulated rather than voted to office and that’s fine by you.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

When you lose anyway, I do hope you won’t be blaming voter oppression

thebrokenrattle on October 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I can’t buy CLR or drain cleaner at my Home Depot without showing an ID and signing a ledger which ID’s who I am…

But hey, let’s let anybody vote, once, twice or as a felon or an illegal…great country we live in…

PatriotRider on October 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

In Okie, you have to show an ID, to get any antihistamine/allergy pill with psuedoephedrine in it.

Oh well, I guess those without an ID just have to keep sneezing.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM

and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I’m sorry, but, how do they know? It would only be reported if a person voted for someone before they voted themselves. But, it doesn’t stop someone from voting as someone who doesn’t vote regularly or is registered properly with a false name.

It is fairly simple in NC to look up a person and see their voting history and from there determine the chances that the person will actually show up and vote. Not to mention poll sitters sending communications back to headquarters letting them know if a person has voted or not.

LoganSix on October 2, 2012 at 3:57 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

Oh really? Tell me more.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

No really. I’m on pins and needles with excitement over here.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Everybody gets to vote. Oh no.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Apart from GOP passing laws and openly admitting they do so to force a Romney win, and they can’t even produce evidence of voter fraud? No.

Apparently winner should be regulated rather than voted to office and that’s fine by you.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Is this guy kidding? Romney will win because the election will be fair. Still haven’t heard an argument against providing ID to vote that isn’t laughably idiotic. None.

search4truth on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Is there a point to your post?

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Apart from GOP passing laws and openly admitting they do so to force a Romney win, and they can’t even produce evidence of voter fraud? No.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Exactly When have they said that?

Chip on October 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Is this guy kidding? Romney will win because the election will be fair. Still haven’t heard an argument against providing ID to vote that isn’t laughably idiotic. None.

search4truth on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

They haven’t been able to provide them. That’s the whole point of this ruling. PA said they would provide the IDs, but, at their own admission, they haven’t been able to provide them.

They require something that they can’t provide. What more of an argument do you need?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Everybody gets to vote. Oh no.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And more than once. You can’t beat America for opportunity, that’s what I always say.

Bishop on October 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Is this guy kidding? Romney will win because the election will be fair. Still haven’t heard an argument against providing ID to vote that isn’t laughably idiotic. None.

search4truth on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Didn’t you know? When you were a kid and your mom said you were ALLOWED to go outside, it meant that she was forcing you to go outside.

DethMetalCookieMonst on October 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM

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.

Because requiring people to prove who they are disproportionately affectes DemocRAT efforts to steal elections.

Steve Eggleston on October 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM

“affects”, even.

Steve Eggleston on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Why Democrats insist upon making voter ID laws into such a divisive partisan issue still defies all logic to me

I assume you were being facetious. If not, I have a 3-word explanation for why Democrats don’t want voter ID laws: Senator Al Franken

Doughboy on October 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

President John F. Kennedy

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Everybody gets to vote. Oh no.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And more than once. You can’t beat America for opportunity, that’s what I always say.

Bishop on October 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

How would requiring an ID prevent a person from voting more than once?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Apparently winner should be regulated rather than voted to office and that’s fine by you.

lester on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

People should not produce ID to vote? But they are expected to have one to buy beer, use a credit card, open a checking account, fly on a plane or do a very large number of other things.

But picking the next president of the United States doesn’t require the same safe guards against abuse that using your credit card does?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I live in PA and I hate the place they have become-mindless union thugs without brains pulling the Dem lever no matter what. We should drop Philly and Pittsburgh!!!

They have been telling people for more than a year here that if they need an ID they can get it-there are a million places to call if you need help-it is all gutless tactics. No one would have been prevented from voting unless they just refuse to have an ID so they could cause trouble. The prisons and altzheimer homes will be voting now.

congma on October 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Looks like King Obama’s internal polls in Pennsylvania are not looking to good. Just sayin’.

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Everybody gets to vote. Oh no.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The dead have been denied suffrage for too long!

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

No doubt they went judge shopping

Bullhead on October 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win.

- Mike Turzai

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, it’s time for your violin lesson! on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

lol, you link to a 13 second clip that proves nothing.

As for this “court case”, care to give us a real link? Who were the plaintiffs and defendants?

Just curious-I know it was before your grandparents were even born,m but was there voter/vote fraud in Texas and Illinois in the 1960 Presidential Election?

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I live in PA and I hate the place they have become-mindless union thugs without brains pulling the Dem lever no matter what. We should drop Philly and Pittsburgh!!!

Philly and Pittsburgh. Or as Pa likes to call them, their “tax base”.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The GOP doesn’t fear voter fraud…they fear voters.
The less…the better.

verbaluce on October 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Once again, I suggest that the thing to do with the argument that ‘requiring voters to produce photo IDs is discriminatory’ is to apply it to gun buyers. O, the waffling and toe dancing!

PersonFromPorlock on October 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Was there voter/vote fraud in Texas and Illinois in the 1960 Presidential Election?

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

How would requiring an ID prevent a person from voting more than once?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The mind boggles.

Because when you vote the poll workers mark down that you’ve voted.
If I’m required to show ID then I can only vote for myself instead of 5 other people at 5 different polling places.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Everybody gets to vote. Oh no.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The dead have been denied suffrage for too long!

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

If they can make it to the polls, I say let ‘em vote too. Honestly, what is the law on the dead voting?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

So what? How much fraud does there have to be before requiring an ID is OK? 5%? 10%?

It’s simply common sense that one should have to demonstrate they are who they say they are in order to cast a ballot. Why bother registering people at all if we don’t care who they are when they show up to vote? It’s not about disenfranchising anyone, and again, if an ID is simply a bridge too far for someone, tough. There are lots of other things they won’t be able to do, as well….are they being put upon because they can’t purchase booze?

changer1701 on October 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

This just about covers it.
And even Erika will thinks it’s funny.

verbaluce on October 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The mind boggles.

Because when you vote the poll workers mark down that you’ve voted.
If I’m required to show ID then I can only vote for myself instead of 5 other people at 5 different polling places.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Sure you can. You just show that same ID to 5 different people in 5 different voting places.

It’s not like scan the ID into a database or something.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Apparently winner should be regulated rather than voted to office and that’s fine by you.

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

You mean like how the US Supreme Court Installed Bush as President in 2000?

A pity, really. Algore would never needed to have won Florida to win that election, if only he wasn’t rejected by the voters of his own Home State of Tennessee.

Heartache!

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

People should not produce ID to vote? But they are expected to have one to buy beer, use a credit card, open a checking account, fly on a plane or do a very large number of other things.

But picking the next president of the United States doesn’t require the same safe guards against abuse that using your credit card does?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

People keep listing this same false list.

You don’t need an ID to buy beer. You need to be over 21.

You don’t need an ID to use a credit card. I buy stuff online all the time. Never had to show my ID once.

You generally need an ID to open a checking account. It’s my understand that that’s a bank’s rule though, and not law.

You don’t need an ID to fly on a plane. You need an ID to fly commercial.

Simply put, there are very few things that person NEEDS an ID to do.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

How would requiring an ID prevent a person from voting more than once?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Gee, I have no idea. None at all.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM

You don’t need an ID to buy beer. You need to be over 21.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

And thank God for store clerks who just take your word for it. God knows no one ever got fined for selling beer to an underage person who *gasp* presented a fake ID stating they were over the legal age.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Treating minorities like children.

Wander on October 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM

We don’t have that many forcible rapes of minors, too. Why do we bother even prosecuting these cases if there are so few of them?Archivarix on October 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Huh? Who said anything about NOT prosecuting those found guilty of voter fraud?

To use your analogy since it’s usually men who commit rape lets have every male member of society purchase a DNA test anytime a rape occurs in order to prove that they are innocent.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Heard at lunch that the judge had no choice, since the state SC had overturned him on appeal when he upheld the law.

My thought was that he should take a page from the “How to Win at Politics” book and suggest that his docket was too full to get around to today’s decision/announcement until mid-November sometime.

I have a dream; it’s a simple dream – someday conservatives will decide that they need to play to win.

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

How would requiring an ID prevent a person from voting more than once?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Gee, I have no idea. None at all.

tdpwells on October 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I can link to things too.

The article talks about the voting list, which the ID law would have no impact on.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Consider the consequences.

On topic, you need an ID to take a test.

Also, not all IDs show that you’re a legal citizen.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Showing a driver’s lic. proves nothing.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Ignorance is so much bliss.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:22 PM

People keep listing this same false list.

You don’t need an ID to buy beer. You need to be over 21.

You don’t need an ID to use a credit card. I buy stuff online all the time. Never had to show my ID once.

You generally need an ID to open a checking account. It’s my understand that that’s a bank’s rule though, and not law.

You don’t need an ID to fly on a plane. You need an ID to fly commercial.

Simply put, there are very few things that person NEEDS an ID to do.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Laws don’t require store clerks to verify that people are of age to buy beer?
Credit card purchases require ID (you can also vote by mail which doesn’t require ID).
So a bank is being racist by requiring ID to open a checking account?
Federal regulations require you show ID to fly commercial, so why can’t state laws require you show ID to vote?
If the federal government can insert itself into a transaction between me and a commercial airline for safety then why can’t it insert itself into the voting process to ensure it has integrity?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM

To vote legally in the USA you need to provide proof of citizenship: birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It is illegal in the USA to vote, unless you are a legal citizen.

Thus, the yackedy-yack about ISs is futile. It proves little.

Proof of legal citizenship s/b required: valid birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Why Democrats insist upon making voter ID laws into such a divisive partisan issue still defies all logic to me

Because they cheat.

They know most Americans are for voter ID laws but they need the extra votes in order to win key races more than they think it will hurt them with voters. Frankly, the “it hurts both sides” baloney just provides them cover since one might be able to point to the occassional individual Republican who plays dirty tricks but it is systemic within the Democrat party. The dead voting and stuffing ballot boxes is part of their GOTV operation.

jnelchef on October 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

2008 –
Obama got 3,192,316 votes –
2,647,932 went to someone else.

So…272,000 people voted twice here?
Wait!
Or did someone vote 544,000 times?
Hmm…
Fox News Investigates!

verbaluce on October 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

…have to help JugEars out!

KOOLAID2 on October 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

After reading the comments here I can only hope you all get out more. Open up your social circles a little bit. Some of you sound like Mitt when he said “Just get a loan from your parents”. To you not having a I’D may seem like a non unfathomable thing but there are people who were born beer who dost have the time or resources to get one. I gave my own personal story that happened to me and I know there’s millions of others that may have similar circumstances. I’m not saying there should be nothing done to help protect our voting process but something that could affect millions of people for the actions of a few 100 doesn’t seem like the right way to go. With the process that we have now voter fraud is virtually non exsitant. If you have links that prove otherwise please provide them so I can be educated. But with out a large need I see no reason to make it harder on the poorest amongst us to vote.

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3