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

James O Keefe could have cast a vote as Eric Holder. But liberals don’t seem to care.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:28 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

Most do, because you don’t need your ID to buy beer.

Are you arguing against….facts?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

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

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You can’t take a SAT or LSAT without ID. Otherwise they wouldn’t know that it’s you.

You have to show ID at airports to get through TSA. Not all fly privately.

You have to show ID to get into the DNC convention.

On voting, showing just any ID will not do. It doesn’t prove that you are a legal citizen. It might prove that you are you, but not that you are legal to vote. It is illegal to vote in the USA, unless you are a legal citizen.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:30 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

Your response is also disingenuous because all of the people liberals claim will be disenfranchised by showing ID to vote in fact show ID on a regular basis for a whole host of things including the things I’ve mentioned.

People concerned about difficulties in getting an ID have had all of their legitimate concerns addressed – ID’s are easy to obtain and are free if necessary.

You have no excuse except that you don’t like integrity in voting.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Excuse the grammar. Replying from a smart phone.

Side note:

Hot Air staff have you ever thought about a mobile app?! Or atleast a m.hotair.com domain?

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

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

OK, Class, notice how the Subject carefully couches its post to avoid having to admit the very real examples of Democrat Voter/Vote Fraud that took place on a massive scale in Texas and Illinois in the 1960 Presidential Election.

A Simple Question for all you Democrat Simple Minds out there in Hot Gas Land: why are you afraid of Honest Elections?

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I’m not surprised, there was so much pressure on this one judge. The state could have done a better job with this too. It was over the day the bogus report came out that said a million voters might not have ID. Nobody believed there was time for a million people to get IDs.

I’m kind of relieved, actually. I was very afraid of massive disruptions at polls on Election Day, manufactured chaos by ACORN type groups, bogus claims that polls had run out of provisional ballots, lawsuits to keep the polls open until midnight, etc. There probably would have been as much fraud with the law as there will be now without it. Now they have no reason to do all that garbage. The law will be up and running smoothly in time for Gov. Corbett’s reelection in 2014.

Hopefully the Democrats are on notice that the bus trips around Philly are going to be watched this time.

rockmom on October 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

California’s gov. just passed a law to provide drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. What good will those IDs be for voting legally?

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Excuse the grammar. Replying from a smart phone.

Side note:

Hot Air staff have you ever thought about a mobile app?! Or atleast a m.hotair.com domain?

Politricks on October 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

At least we can agree on this.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:35 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

Laws do not require store clerks to verify that people are of age to buy beer. That is correct.

Credit card purchases do not require ID. That’s simply a fact. There’s no way around that. Hell, even in the store, they don’t require ID.

Ah, so you’re pivoting on the banks. Now, it’s not that they do or don’t require, it’s “What does it mean why they do”. Yes, banks are discriminating when requesting identification. Do you disagree?

Like driving, citizens don’t have a right to fly. We have a right to vote.

Finally, we’ll see how much the federal government can intervene in constitutionally granted rights. You certainly believe that the federal government has an unlimited ability to intervene. They can’t, per se, require a citizen to own property to vote.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Libertarians oppose federal IDs, equivalent to passports. Short of such the entire debate is futile, from both sides, for goring different oxens.

p.s. yes, I do understand the invasion of privacy from a libertarian standpoint and do not advocate such. Just exposing the hoax the ID discussion is, from both sides.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Who will this prevent from voting?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

ou can’t take a SAT or LSAT without ID. Otherwise they wouldn’t know that it’s you.

You have to show ID at airports to get through TSA. Not all fly privately.

You have to show ID to get into the DNC convention.

On voting, showing just any ID will not do. It doesn’t prove that you are a legal citizen. It might prove that you are you, but not that you are legal to vote. It is illegal to vote in the USA, unless you are a legal citizen.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

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.

Maybe more IDs weren’t issued because the estimate was too high! Good God! If you don’t have a government issued photo ID by now, you’ve been living in a cave for the last 30 years or so!

Dexter_Alarius on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Actually, I think this decision may point the way toward getting more voter ID laws passed. In states that don’t have voter ID laws yet, let’s try to pass laws that require voters to produce photo ID, but which take effect, say, three years from the date the law is passed.

It’s going to be difficult for Democrats to claim with a straight face that old people or young people or poor people or whoever won’t be able to get a photo ID even if they have three years in which to do so.

J.S.K. on October 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Lost in all of this is the fact that Obama rallies/fundraisers require photo ID to attend.

Why is that, I wonder?

Is Obama racist, trying to keep minorities out of his functions? Perhaps he’s discriminating against them by presuming they coudln’t afford to be there anyway?

C’mon, lefties – a) why does Obama require photo ID to get into these events, and b) why?

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Your response is also disingenuous because all of the people liberals claim will be disenfranchised by showing ID to vote in fact show ID on a regular basis for a whole host of things including the things I’ve mentioned.

People concerned about difficulties in getting an ID have had all of their legitimate concerns addressed – ID’s are easy to obtain and are free if necessary.

You have no excuse except that you don’t like integrity in voting.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You have to have money to buy beer, yes? Should you be required to have money vote?

Seriously. You analogy makes as much sense.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And neither do non-citizens have the right to vote. So your point is… what, precisely?

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Laws do not require store clerks to verify that people are of age to buy beer. That is correct.

Credit card purchases do not require ID. That’s simply a fact. There’s no way around that. Hell, even in the store, they don’t require ID.

Ah, so you’re pivoting on the banks. Now, it’s not that they do or don’t require, it’s “What does it mean why they do”. Yes, banks are discriminating when requesting identification. Do you disagree?

Like driving, citizens don’t have a right to fly. We have a right to vote.

Finally, we’ll see how much the federal government can intervene in constitutionally granted rights. You certainly believe that the federal government has an unlimited ability to intervene. They can’t, per se, require a citizen to own property to vote.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

So store clerks don’t need to verify the age of beer purchasers?
You’re claiming that voter ID laws disenfranchise voters but curiously you don’t say they are disenfranchising the same people who might want a checking account. Or fly commercial.

You’re going to equate owning property as a prerequisite to voting with proving that you are who you say you are?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

A Simple Question for all you Democrat Simple Minds out there in Hot Gas Land: why are you afraid of Honest Elections?

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

The IDs, like drivers’ licenses are not the answer. However, to your question, because they like to cheat and are never for liberty, honesty, freedom, justice, equality, so long as they have the advantage. They love to keep their fools in the modern day plantations, for votes only.

Legal US resident aliens have federal IDs, called green-cards. Still, they prove only that those people are in the US legally, and that they are not eligible to vote. Thus, they are better than a driver’s license.

Just like they possess such an ID card, the legal citizens would have to have a federal ID to prove that they can vote legally.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Some people don’t have that right. How do you tell at a polling place who has that right and who doesn’t?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Laws do not require store clerks to verify that people are of age to buy beer. That is correct.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

LOL, what state do *you* live in, bub? The law here in Texas explicitly states that they *do*, in fact, have to verify your age – or are personally criminally/financially liable.

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You don’t have a right to vote as an illegal alien, dog, dead, prisoner, in two states and etc.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Whew, for a minute there, I though people would be denied their right to vote twice, or because they’re dead or fictional. Close call.

Saltyron on October 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You don’t have a right to vote as Eric Holder when you are segasagez.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

You have to have money to buy beer, yes? Should you be required to have money vote?

Seriously. You analogy makes as much sense.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Are you purposely being obtuse? Or are you really this stupid. I’ll explain it simply.

People want to prevent voter fraud by requiring voters to prove they are who they claim to be on the voting rolls. Liberals respond with hysterical claims that this will stop minorities from voting. I have never heard a liberal claim that similar requirements and practices – like showing ID to buy beer – keeps minorities from any of these activities. The fact is people show their ID all the time to do all sorts of things and liberals never complain about them being disenfranchised.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You don’t have a right to do any of those things.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And neither do non-citizens have the right to vote. So your point is… what, precisely?

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Really? You honestly don’t get the point?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So I guess I don’t need my Voter Registration card either? I can just walk right in to any old voting location and cast my vote, easy peesy lemon squeezy?

No? You mean, I have to show I live in that area? They have to have my voter card on file? B..b..b..b..but, that’s a undue restriction on my right to vote!!!

Saltyron on October 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

How conveniently you addressed only the first part of my comment.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Who would voter ID stop from voting?

The person who originally brought the case in VA easily obtained an appropriate ID after they lost the case.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Really? You honestly don’t get the point?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Midas gets the point just fine.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Liberals: The beer buying process should have more integrity than voting.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Who would voter ID stop from voting?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Hardly anyone. However, the entire voter ID is a bogus discussion, from both sides. It solves nothing, not with the drivers’ licenses or such.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Most of the responsibility for this seems to lie with the PA Supreme court. Just to clarify: Simpson is the same judge who upheld the law initially. It was sent back to him with instructions from the PA Supreme Court. I’d have to do some research but it’s not far-fetched to guess that the PA Supremes might be a bit left-leaning bcuz how convenient is it that they managed to keep the voter ID law out of this election?

stukinIL4now on October 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Really? You honestly don’t get the point?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Ah, so you’re being obtuse on purpose.
I take this as a sign you have no argument. If you had a real argument you’d use it.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

So store clerks don’t need to verify the age of beer purchasers?
You’re claiming that voter ID laws disenfranchise voters but curiously you don’t say they are disenfranchising the same people who might want a checking account. Or fly commercial.

You’re going to equate owning property as a prerequisite to voting with proving that you are who you say you are?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

How many times must this be said? Store clerks are not required, by law, to verify the age of alcohol purchasers.

Voter laws disenfranchise those that cannot get ID to vote. It does. For example, if they required everyone to have a job before they can vote, those without jobs would be disenfranchised.

You’re mistaking your own argument.

And final point was there there are limits to government restrictions on a person’s rights. You were implying that there weren’t.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

stukinIL4now on October 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

You’re right…but the ID initiatives prove little and stop no one from voting illegaly.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

“Today’s decision means one thing for Pennsylvanians: eligible citizens can purchase a gun on any day of the week, just like they have previous years in the state.”

Fixed it for the Dem PR rep there. Oh wait, Dems don’t hold the 2nd ammendment to the same standard as the first or voter’s rights? Darn. Guess I’m just a bitter clinger to guns like they’re bitter clingers to easy election fraud.

As Cowboy states above, its Federal law now to show ID to purchase sudafed and they write down all your info. Here in Oregon, you need a doctor’s prescription to buy sudafed on top of ID. State legislature passed that in 2006. Meth still is reported to be common and cheap to buy apparently here though (can’t imagine why given our great border enforcement). So now I need ID to show my doctor (most want to confirm who you are) along with my insurance ID card all so I can get rid of bad allergies or a cold. Along with a $25 co-pay for seeing the doc.

Damn those grannies buying cold meds to sell for meth! Or not…

http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f

But voter ID laws hurt civil rights!

oryguncon on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

LOL, what state do *you* live in, bub? The law here in Texas explicitly states that they *do*, in fact, have to verify your age – or are personally criminally/financially liable.

Midas on October 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM

No they don’t. You’re just making stuff up:

Texas state law does not require that a person over 21 provide any identification to purchase alcohol in Texas. There is nothing in the law that declares specific forms of ID as “valid” for an alcohol purchase.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforcement/age_verification.asp
-Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM

How many times must this be said? Store clerks are not required, by law, to verify the age of alcohol purchasers.

Voter laws disenfranchise those that cannot get ID to vote. It does. For example, if they required everyone to have a job before they can vote, those without jobs would be disenfranchised.

You’re mistaking your own argument.

And final point was there there are limits to government restrictions on a person’s rights. You were implying that there weren’t.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Clerks have to verify age by law. This is done by showing ID.
The same thing should be required at the polls.

Your concern about people not being able to obtain ID has been addressed repeatedly – ID is obtainable by anyone who desires it and qualifies to vote.

Who in the sam hill has ever said people would be required to have job before voting? You’re inventing straw men.

Using your same criteria using voter rolls is also an overreach.

It’s simple – you should be able to prove you are who you claim to be on the voter rolls. Showing and ID is a simple way of doing this. The ID should be – and is in every state where it’s been implemented – easily available to all who would need it.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I don’t suppose it occurred to the judge that maybe the reason “there had been [only] a slight increase in the issuance of drivers’ licenses during the last six months” could be that folks who are dead or otherwise ineligible to vote haven’t bothered to try to get a drivers’ license in the last six months. Which is exactly what voter ID laws are all about. Dunderhead.

Harrell on October 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Contact Republican Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and ask him to appeal the ruling.

scrubjay on October 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

We should just use text message voting like American Idol.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:59 PM

These utterly transparent, self-righteous “arguments” about voter fraud are not convincing anyone. There is NO evidence of voter fraud in the U.S., other than a few anecdotal stories passed around on web sites like this. NONE. Is there any evidence that voter fraud has changed the outcome of ANY election on the national or state level? Cite it. This “Voter ID” stuff is obviously and transparently an attempt to disenfranchise voters who usually lean Democratic. Let’s hear the argument that both Republicans and Democrats will lose (or gain) the same number of votes from this legislation. There is no such argument. And “Democrats are the ones who cheat!” isn’t an argument…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I don’t suppose it occurred to the judge that maybe the reason “there had been [only] a slight increase in the issuance of drivers’ licenses during the last six months” could be that folks who are dead or otherwise ineligible to vote haven’t bothered to try to get a drivers’ license in the last six months. Which is exactly what voter ID laws are all about. Dunderhead.

Harrell on October 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM

The judge was forced to make the ruling he did by the PA supreme court.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

It’s simple – you should be able to prove you are who you claim to be on the voter rolls. Showing and ID is a simple way of doing this. The ID should be – and is in every state where it’s been implemented – easily available to all who would need it.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

No, good one. It might prove that you are who you claim you are but it doesn’t prove that you are a legal citizen.

Only a valid birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate, to give 3 examples, prove that the person is legally in the US and can therefore legally vote.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Cite one person who this would prevent from voting. Using the actual language of the law.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

How many times must this be said? Store clerks are not required, by law, to verify the age of alcohol purchasers.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You are an idiot.

WeCard.Org.

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Here’s the problem with your argument. There are restrictions on rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Do we have handguns on demand? Can we yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theatre? Where for the common good restrictions have been the siren call for liberals since they started pissing in their pants over Churches and handguns.

By the same token, citizens in the U.S. have the right to know that the voting pool is not tainted by those that would steal the election by fraud.

As a citizen, don’t you want to protect the voting rights of all individuals? When you vote, don’t you wish to know your vote will count? As a citizen, in order to secure the right to vote and protect the integrity of an election, wouldn’t you be willing to do your part by providing valid identification?

itsspideyman on October 2, 2012 at 5:03 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.

the level of apparent irrationality is a measure of corruption. This country is hugely irrational…and filled with magical thinking

climate stuff, wind power, bullet trains, zirp forever are all irrational…and corrupt. There is a large portion of the populace who believe in magical thinking…and snake oil salesmen have always made a tidy profit off these people.

r keller on October 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM

No, good one. It might prove that you are who you claim you are but it doesn’t prove that you are a legal citizen.

Only a valid birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate, to give 3 examples, prove that the person is legally in the US and can therefore legally vote.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

It depends on the state but at least having a process in place is a start.

No one is going to be legitimately denied their vote and at worse we’re slightly better off than we used to be with something in place that can be improved upon.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Posted this a few months back; it’s from a couple of years ago and is a review of a new (at the time) book chronicling the 1960 Presidential election:

Federal special prosecutor Morris Wexler conducted a quiet inquiry into 1960 Illinois election fraud and the evidence was pervasive. Mayor Richard J. Daley stole Illinois’ 27 Electoral College votes for fellow Democrat John F. Kennedy, denying Richard Nixon the presidency. Kennedy won the state by 8,858 of 4.7 million votes.

Mayor Daley was known for stuffing ballot boxes and giving ward bosses and precinct captains vote quotas. Two recounts of Chicago-area voting later showed that Democrats had likely stolen tens of thousands of votes for the Democratic ticket, including down-ballot races.

Special prosecutor Wexler’s report, issued in April 1961, found “substantial” miscounts in the 1,367 precincts it examined, including unqualified voters, misread voting machines and math mistakes. In one precinct, voters asked where to deposit tickets for drawing for hams. In another, a precinct captain handed out slips of paper entitling voters to free lunches.

-snip-

Wexler’s inquiry was hampered by the non-cooperation of Cook County officials and the Democratic machine, where Wexler was stonewalled. Wexler brought contempt charges against 667 election officials, but the cases were dismissed by a Democratic judge. Three people were convicted on criminal charges.

-snip-

The evidence of voter fraud in Texas, where the Kennedy-Johnson ticket carried the state by a scant 50,000 votes was as widespread and odious as that of the daily machine in Chicago. Thousands of Texas ballots were thrown out on the technicality that all of those who went to the polls did not scratch out the names of the candidates for the presidency for whom they did not want to vote, as the law required. Republicans – who were not joined by Nixon, who was graceful in defeat, if privately furious, charged this had taken the state’s electoral vote away from the Vice President. The requirement was applied in some counties and not in others.

-snip-

Kennedy ended up with 303 electoral votes to Nixon’s 219. The shift of Illinois and Texas would have made the difference.

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The “final point” (IMHO) is STOP FEEDING the TROLL!

Katfish on October 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Voter fraud doesn’t exist? It does:

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Counting-Fraudsters-Bureaucrats-Your/dp/1594036187/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349211838&sr=1-1&keywords=hans+von+spakovsky

The 2012 election will be one of the hardest-fought in U.S. history. It is also likely to be one of the closest, a fact that brings concerns about voter fraud and bureaucratic incompetence in the conduct of elections front and center. If we don’t take notice, we could see another debacle like the Bush-Gore Florida recount of 2000 in which courts and lawyers intervened in what should have involved only voters.

Who’s Counting? will focus attention on many problems of our election system, ranging from voter fraud to a slipshod system of vote counting that noted political scientist Walter Dean Burnham calls “the most careless of the developed world.” In an effort to clean up our election laws, reduce fraud and increase public confidence in the integrity of the voting system, many states ranging from Georgia to Wisconsin have passed laws requiring a photo ID be shown at the polls and curbing the rampant use of absentee ballots, a tool of choice by fraudsters. The response from Obama allies has been to belittle the need for such laws and attack them as akin to the second coming of a racist tide in American life. In the summer of 2011, both Bill Clinton and DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz preposterously claimed that such laws suppressed minority voters and represented a return to the era of Jim Crow.

But voter fraud is a well-documented reality in American elections. Just this year, a sheriff and county clerk in West Virginia pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes with fraudulent absentee ballots that changed the outcome of an election. In 2005, a state senate election in Tennessee was overturned because of voter fraud. The margin of victory? 13 votes. In 2008, the Minnesota senate race that provided the 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare was decided by a little over 300 votes. Almost 200 felons have already been convicted of voting illegally in that election and dozens of other prosecutions are still pending. Public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low. In the Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2008, 62% of American voters thought that voter fraud was very common or somewhat common. Fear that elections are being stolen erodes the legitimacy of our government. That’s why the vast majority of Americans support laws like Kansas’s Secure and Fair Elections Act. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that 82% of Americans support photo ID laws.

While Americans frequently demand observers and best practices in the elections of other countries, we are often blind to the need to scrutinize our own elections. We may pay the consequences in 2012 if a close election leads us into pitched partisan battles and court fights that will dwarf the Bush-Gore recount wars.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The Second Amendment grants US Americans the right to bare arms.

It does not demand to show IDs to purchase such arms. Yet, every single state requires that you show IDs to acquire such arms.

Yes, you don’t have to buy arms, but you do have the right to do so, via the 2nd.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM

gwelf: The person who cannot take time off from his or her job to travel to a government office to get a new ID. And that person is far more likely to vote Democratic. The point is that these laws are expressly designed to make it MORE difficult to vote. Which party will lose more votes as a result of these laws? Answer honestly, if you can.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

bare arms = bear arms.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Let the judge think its been halted and go right on with the business of cleaning up the voter rolls and the ID program and when anybody asks lie like hell and when the pressure is put on lie some more and when its gets bad enough say you’re just following the administration’s example.

Speakup on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Most do, because you don’t need your ID to buy beer.

Are you arguing against….facts?

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Are you an idiot? Really?

good lord – you leftists are truly the most dishonest creatures under the sun.

Next you’ll tell me that you don’t need an ID to bank, to rent a car, to rent a video, to get a library card, to fly, to enter a federal building, to buy cigarets, to obtain student loans, to get employment (I-9 requires 2 forms of state issued photo id), to drive, and to engage in almost all major economic activities.

No, no IDs required. Why – it’s too damn hard to get an ID and too burdensome to require an ID.

So dishonest. Ask yourself, knowing as you do that IDs are required for everyday life and obtaining an ID is not difficult at all for anyone – what possible reason can you leftists have for fighting this for voting?

No, there’s no such thing as voter fraud. But we must ensure that nobody has to show ID to vote. To do almost any other thing – yes. but not to vote.

Idiot.

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Are you purposely being obtuse? Or are you really this stupid. I’ll explain it simply.

People want to prevent voter fraud by requiring voters to prove they are who they claim to be on the voting rolls. Liberals respond with hysterical claims that this will stop minorities from voting. I have never heard a liberal claim that similar requirements and practices – like showing ID to buy beer – keeps minorities from any of these activities. The fact is people show their ID all the time to do all sorts of things and liberals never complain about them being disenfranchised.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Alright, so after spending an afternoon writing things that are demonstrably not true, you take all those untrue things and come up with what you think is a magically true conclusion?

Yes, requiring people to provide ID when they fly disenfranchises those without IDs. However, given that we don’t have a right to fly and the security concerns associated with an ID, we accept that level of disenfranchisement.

I don’t accept that level of disenfranchisement with voting.

That’s really what it boils down to, I guess.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM

although, i do think voter ID is something of a distraction. Voter ID has a 70 percent approval…so the left is automatically against it.

the real crooks/leftist are perfectly happy to rely on Stalin’s line about it’s not who votes that is important..it is who counts the votes

so while voter ID should be implemented…that doesn’t solve the underlying problem

r keller on October 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I understand your sentiment but it really proves nothing. The left use it to ‘feel disenfranchised’ and the right gain little. It’s all a waste of time, unless…what I addressed above, which w/b challenged in the SCOTUS (meaning a federal ID for those born in the US).

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM

gwelf: Read what you posted. There is absolutely no evidence in that quote of any voter fr4aud. Just a lot of close elections that MIGHT have been affected by fraud and a lot of ” X% Americans are WORRIED about fraud.” But NO evidence of fraud. It’s a phantom of the right-wing imagination.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Aren’t you making a generalization? Isn’t that a bias in saying that Democrats are not capable or unwilling to perform an obligation as a citizen?

If citizenship requires it, why not? I’ve been told that my duty as a citizen is to pay my taxes. Why can’t in the exercise of our duty as Americans we trap voter fraud by all pitching in and doing our part by providing valid identification?

itsspideyman on October 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I don’t accept that level of disenfranchisement with voting.

That’s really what it boils down to, I guess.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Except in your head, there is no disenfranchisement.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

There is, however, lots of cheating.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Laws do not require store clerks to verify that people are of age to buy beer. That is correct.
segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Oh, but in Pennsylvania they do, pal. I was being “carded” into my mid-30s at the baseball stadium’s food and beer vendors, there are a few grocery stores that sell beer — which you have to show ID and pay for at a separate register — and the few bars who sell to anyone under 21 have gotten busted pretty rapidly. In addition, one grocery chain in my area has signs that if a person is born after a certain date, he or she cannot buy a pack of cigarettes, either. The clerks check — I’ve seen it — even if the clerks are teens as well. And virtually ALL of the state liquor stores won’t allow a person in the store if they are under 21 and not accompanied by a parent. Think they take someone’s word for it at face value or do you think they look at the kid’s driver’s license?

I’d have to do some research but it’s not far-fetched to guess that the PA Supremes might be a bit left-leaning bcuz how convenient is it that they managed to keep the voter ID law out of this election?

stukinIL4now on October 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

This. ^^^ You better believe it. It’s a totally bogus argument that people are “disenfranchised,” particularly after the story a while back of a 96-year-old woman getting one for herself for the first time. In fact, she was one of the original 10 plaintiffs; after that, it was — how shall we say — inconvenient for her to be associated with the whole thing.

PatriotGal2257 on October 2, 2012 at 5:11 PM

There is also a lot of noise, from the left, to make it appear that the ‘poor’ and the ‘minorities’ are disenfranchised.

It’s mainly a setup for the 35,000 lawsuits, after Nov. 6, to commence.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

How many times must this be said? Store clerks are not required, by law, to verify the age of alcohol purchasers.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You are an idiot.

WeCard.Org.

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

ha. And on this note, I’ll call it a day.

I mean, seriously. What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?!

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

We need an ID to buy beer because there is MASSIVE evidence of people attempting to use fraud to buy beer, while there is NO evidence (apart from a VERY few anecdotal stories, as I mentioned earlier) of people using fraud to falsely vote. Once again – which party would be affected most by such laws?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

gwelf: The person who cannot take time off from his or her job to travel to a government office to get a new ID. And that person is far more likely to vote Democratic. The point is that these laws are expressly designed to make it MORE difficult to vote. Which party will lose more votes as a result of these laws? Answer honestly, if you can.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

These laws will affect Democrat votes because the Democrats more regularly engage in voter fraud. See Al Franken’s Senate run in MN as a prime example.

The same argument could be made about driver’s licenses. These people who supposedly can’t get an ID need an ID to do lots of things in society. But liberals never speak up about these disenfranchised people who are prevented from buying beer or doing any number of other things where they will be required to show ID.

Voter ID laws include provisions that make sure IDs are available to people.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I’m getting to the point that I honestly think only violence will solve the difference between the left and right. We can’t count on the rule of law when there are leftist judges ignoring it. We can’t count on politicians to obey the law and constitution.

We can’t even count on the left to believe in simple things like freedom of speech anymore.

I, for one, will have no problem if a true civil war breaks out. I believe it is necessary at this point. I think we are truly as divided as the nation was right before the Civil War.

These kind of fundamental differences cannot be resolved by compromise. How do you compromise away your freedom and liberty?

When one side wants unfettered immigration with no rules about who comes in or why – how do you “compromise” with that?

When one side wants the gov’t to take care of everyone from cradle to grave – how do you compromise with that?

When one side sees all income as the state’s to take as it sees fit – how do you compromise with that?

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Oh, but in Pennsylvania they do, pal.

PatriotGal2257 on October 2, 2012 at 5:11 PM

No, they don’t. I live in PA. There is no law requiring people to show ID when purchasing alcohol.

Everyone repeating that they do isn’t going to make it true. Just look it up.

Sorry, can’t let simple, incontrovertible facts be disregarded so liberally.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The point is that these laws are expressly designed to make it MORE difficult to vote.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Another Axelrod Sleeper Activation?

Please cite in the text of the Pennsylvania Law where the law itself states that its purpose is to make it more difficult to vote.

Here is the complete text, as written.

Take your time!

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Alright, so after spending an afternoon writing things that are demonstrably not true, you take all those untrue things and come up with what you think is a magically true conclusion?

Yes, requiring people to provide ID when they fly disenfranchises those without IDs. However, given that we don’t have a right to fly and the security concerns associated with an ID, we accept that level of disenfranchisement.

I don’t accept that level of disenfranchisement with voting.

That’s really what it boils down to, I guess.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Top to bottom stupid. there is no “disenfranchisement” by requiring ID to vote.

You get an ID, you vote. If you choose not to get an ID – that is your choice. Nobody is preventing you from obtaining an ID.

It’s as if leftists simply want to deny reality and create a reality where someone exists that simply cannot, no matter how hard they try, obtain an ID.

Stupid. Dishonest. Idiotic.

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

We need an ID to buy beer because there is MASSIVE evidence of people attempting to use fraud to buy beer, while there is NO evidence (apart from a VERY few anecdotal stories, as I mentioned earlier) of people using fraud to falsely vote. Once again – which party would be affected most by such laws?

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You genuinely don’t think voter fraud occurs? Ok, fine I’ll take you at your word. But you’re wrong. Have you researched it?

Someone provided a link above about the MN Senate race. 1000+ convicts voted in a Senate race decided by less than 400 votes.

There are other examples that are not “anecdotal” but actual cases of voter fraud.

Google Hans Van Spakovsky – he talks about this regularly.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

The Second Amendment grants US Americans the right to bare arms.

It does not demand to show IDs to purchase such arms. Yet, every single state requires that you show IDs to acquire such arms.

Yes, you don’t have to buy arms, but you do have the right to do so, via the 2nd.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM

And yes, this is a good point. As another poster said, rights aren’t unlimited. Personally and statistically, the amount of voting fraud that voter IDs would reduce is not equal to those that wouldn’t be able to vote due to the law.

Even you admitted that.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

there is NO evidence (apart from a VERY few anecdotal stories, as I mentioned earlier) of people using fraud to falsely vote.

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Yeah, you’re right. What I describe in my 5:04 PM post never really happened.

pm122 was much funnier.

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

here’s why leftists like you are basically unconvincing. As is well known now, Al Franken won with the help of the Felon Vote…which is not a legal vote

ok, now you will dissemble and whine, but the truth is you don’t care as long as your guy wins…i.e. the ends justify the means.

you will never be a honest broker and try to help assemble a system that is more honest, because you benefit from the current system.

r keller on October 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM

How many times must this be said? Store clerks are not required, by law, to verify the age of alcohol purchasers.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You are an idiot.

WeCard.Org.

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

ha. And on this note, I’ll call it a day.

I mean, seriously. What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?!

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You’re such a tool segasagez. Such a pathetic tool. You have no counter argument so you simply run away.

Did I mention that you’re a complete tool?

You’re a sad, pathetic tool.

NapaConservative on October 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No, they don’t. I live in PA. There is no law requiring people to show ID when purchasing alcohol.

Everyone repeating that they do isn’t going to make it true. Just look it up.

Sorry, can’t let simple, incontrovertible facts be disregarded so liberally.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM

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

Regardless, people get carded to buy beer. Liberals don’t run around claiming minorities are being prevented from buying beer.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:19 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

A Simple Question for all you Democrat Simple Minds out there in Hot Gas Land: why are you afraid of Honest Elections?

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

We’ve had honest elections. That’s why every report done on the subject has found voter fraud to be non existant. 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

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Further, the number of people without an ID is likely exactly equal to the number of illegal immigrants. I seriously doubt that an eligible voter exists in this country who does not have a state issued photo ID.

The very idea is ludicrous. You would have to actually strive to avoid obtaining one rather than the other way around.

I suppose such a person exists who uses no federal service, gets no federal entitlements, doesn’t bank or fly or rent movies and doesn’t work. I’m not sure how they survive as they can’t get entitlements like SS or welfare without an ID and can’t work without an ID. So, they likely already died of starvation.

Yes. The population of eligible voters who don’t work and don’t receive any state or federal assistance is probably a huge percentage of Americans.

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

And yes, this is a good point. As another poster said, rights aren’t unlimited. Personally and statistically, the amount of voting fraud that voter IDs would reduce is not equal to those that wouldn’t be able to vote due to the law.

Even you admitted that.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

How many legitimate votes would the voter ID law prevent?

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Voter ID laws include provisions that make sure IDs are available to people.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

There have been tons of radio, TV and mail PSAs here in PA which spelled out the need for an ID to vote. There was also an effort by PennDOT to increase their hours and days they would be open for people to acquire just such an ID.

Seriously, as someone mentioned earlier, a person would really have to be living under a rock not to have any kind of photo ID. The list for which a person needs a photo ID grows by the day. It’s way long past time to require one to vote.

PatriotGal2257 on October 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

No ones really surprised by this, are you? The necessity of votter Fraud for a Democrat win is undeniable! The reality is that there will have to be such a volume of voter fraud to accomplish an Obama win, it will be blatantly obvious!
For those following,How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

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

Link, please.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:22 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, in your mind a law is unconstitutional if it effects democrats more than republicans? You truly are an idiot. It’s unconstitutional if it effects “voting preferences” differently?

Idiot. You really have no clue what the Constitution says or means do you?

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

Del: 1960!? Yes, you’re correct – there was much voter fraud 50 years ago. Then they passed a little thing called the Voting Rights Act. I think you’re arguing against yourself now…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

Not a single R/D wants any granny thrown over the cliff. Yet, you indecent hyenas showed that video. It proved nothing, except that you are creeps who stop at nothing. You have no decency.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

Hmmmm. If you are poor and bed stricken you likely receive some form of state or federal assistance, like welfare or DSI. In which case, you need an ID to obtain the benefits.

So, why can’t they also use that same ID to vote?

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:25 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

Poor: ID’s are free if you want one

Bed stricken: Why are requiring an ID become a hindrance for the bed stricken? If you can haul your a$$ to the voting booth to vote, you can haul your a$$ to get an ID

Possession of very few resources: See Poor

NapaConservative on October 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

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

A laugher of a question. You’re saying these people wouldn’t exercise their obligation as citizens. In every state where this is ID requirements, provisions for free ID’s have been set up.

As to whether voter fraud exists, it doesn’t just happen with voters, it happens with people running for Congress:

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

Perhaps she just thought if they didn’t check ID’s, it wasn’t fraud. ;-)

itsspideyman on October 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

The original case in PA involved someone who said they’d have difficulty getting ID. When they lost their case they got ID, the lawyers were pissed because this obviously hurt their appeals case.

gwelf on October 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Even you admitted that.

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I stand for every legal citizen to exercise his/her right to vote.

I also stand for every illegal one, dogs, the dead, prisoners in certain states, double/triple state voting, etc. to be forbidden from voting.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Del: 1960!? Yes, you’re correct – there was much voter fraud 50 years ago. Then they passed a little thing called the Voting Rights Act. I think you’re arguing against yourself now…

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Hmm – the VRA had what to do with voter fraud exactly? Oh yeah, nothing.

Every new comment establishes more idiocy from this one.

I love how absolutely everything in the left’s mind is “Jim Crow” all over again.

Jim Crow is like “Nazi” in an argument. If that is all you have and are throwing it out as your argument – you have admitted defeat. You are admitting that you have no facts and no logical argument so you are simply going to call names and cast aspersions.

But, that is all the left ever does.

Monkeytoe on October 2, 2012 at 5:28 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

pm123 on October 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

and so, as a result of the Franken fraud…we get this:

One of the tragedies of the Obama Administration is the historic political accident that it had 60 Senate Democratic votes in 2009. The ability to break a filibuster without Republican votes empowered the left to think it could pass anything, and so it steamrolled ahead with ObamaCare, which needed every one of those 60 votes to pass.

Now a couple of those Senators are expressing regrets about those votes after the fact. In our pages last week, former Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh rehearsed the looming economic damage from ObamaCare’s medical-device tax. He described, as some of us predicted in 2009 during the debate, how the tax is sending jobs and investment overseas in an industry where the U.S. still leads the world. Mr. Bayh, who retired after 2010, provided the 60th vote for ObamaCare to pass.

but of course it was no accident.

MN fraud
Spector promised the moon, and then dumped under the bus
AK senator dumped because of prosecution misconduct

the left is very good at playing every angle…the ends justify whatever means necessary

but i know you see obamacare as some sort of great ‘moral victory’ in the march toward social justice or something

r keller on October 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

ha. And on this note, I’ll call it a day.

I mean, seriously. What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?!

segasagez on October 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I have no idea, you are the one who brought it up.

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3