PA courts strike down Voter ID law

[Thebobo]

Fuck them both. They serve the same master.


I should run for political office. Too bad I would never win, because I am honest and not a weasel.


I have to find another way to make meaningful change.

You could be a evangelical preacher, may get your own TV show and large church!

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps we can start by issuing a free photo ID with welfare, food stamp and WIC applications and during processing in prison and jails. Then come election time all the Democrat voters will already have state-issued photo ID.

See how much empathy I have? I have fixed your problem with absolutely no burden on "left-leaning demographics".

Thank you for illustrating my point.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of the modern Republican. This is their tiny-minded, black and white view of Americans: if you are not a Republican, you must be either a welfare queen or a criminal. They dismiss the elderly. They dismiss the poor. The dismiss minorities and students and people with disabilities. They dismiss anyone who strays from their self-absorbed and shamelessly ignorant caricature of American life.

 

[werepossum]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of the modern Republican. This is their tiny-minded, black and white view of Americans: if you are not a Republican, you must be either a welfare queen or a criminal. They dismiss the elderly. They dismiss the poor. The dismiss minorities and students and people with disabilities. They dismiss anyone who strays from their self-absorbed and shamelessly ignorant caricature of American life.

The vast majority of the elderly, the poor, students, people with disabilities, and yes, <gasp> even minorities DO have photo ID.

 

[Bowfinger]

The vast majority of the elderly, the poor, students, people with disabilities, and yes, <gasp> even minorities DO have photo ID.

Perhaps, but the FACT is millions do not. Note in particular that most of these laws require not just a photo ID, but a current, state-issued photo ID. They expressly reject expired IDs (elderly and disabled) and student IDs, even with photos. That's one of the many inconvenient tells that expose the true intent of these laws.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps, but the FACT is millions do not. Note in particular that most of these laws require not just a photo ID, but a current, state-issued photo ID. They expressly reject expired IDs (elderly and disabled) and student IDs, even with photos. That's one of the many inconvenient tells that expose the true intent of these laws.

I have absolutely no problem mandating funding to provide photo IDs for those who do not have them. This could also help in eliminating fraud in giveway programs. But I see no reason that people without photo ID should somehow be exempt from the same time-consuming, irritating requirements the rest of us put up with. If people are allowed to merely state that they are eligible and register to vote, then vote with no identification, then allow me the same latitude for fishing license, driver's license, concealed carry permit, etc. None of these things can do nearly as much damage as can government.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have absolutely no problem mandating funding to provide photo IDs for those who do not have them. This could also help in eliminating fraud in giveway programs. But I see no reason that people without photo ID should somehow be exempt from the same time-consuming, irritating requirements the rest of us put up with. If people are allowed to merely state that they are eligible and register to vote, then vote with no identification, then allow me the same latitude for fishing license, driver's license, concealed carry permit, etc. None of these things can do nearly as much damage as can government.

How about we just allow you the same latitude as everybody else wrt voting?

That's not so bad, is it?

 

[umbrella39]

How will these people who can't afford to get ID's to vote be able to verify their identities to sign up for Obamacare or when they use their insurance during a doctor's office visit?

You thought and you thought... and this is the best you could come up with? Wow.

 

[werepossum]

How about we just allow you the same latitude as everybody else wrt voting?

That's not so bad, is it?

Actually it is. You guys want to make me jump through hoops in the things I must do to be a productive citizen, yet when it's politically advantageous you also want to just take everyone's word. Let's have one standard of required identification for all government interaction.

 

[Paratus]

Actually it is. You guys want to make me jump through hoops in the things I must do to be a productive citizen, yet when it's politically advantageous you also want to just take everyone's word. Let's have one standard of required identification for all government interaction.

People who are citizens in this country whether they have a current photo ID should have the right to vote on their leaders, true or false?

 

[werepossum]

People who are citizens in this country whether they have a current photo ID should have the right to vote on their leaders, true or false?

Personally I think all government interaction should require a government photo ID.

All citizens (at least those who aren't felons) should have the right to vote on their leaders, but just as one has to prove one's identity to purchase a gun, one should similarly have to prove one's identity to exercise our greatest power. Otherwise there is no practical way to determine who IS a citizen with that right.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of the modern Republican. This is their tiny-minded, black and white view of Americans: if you are not a Republican, you must be either a welfare queen or a criminal. They dismiss the elderly. They dismiss the poor. The dismiss minorities and students and people with disabilities. They dismiss anyone who strays from their self-absorbed and shamelessly ignorant caricature of American life.

What's interesting is that at this point he has abandoned any pretense that his position is actually based on facts or a real issue that he's trying to prevent. It's now "because something else happens that I don't like, people should have to do this".

We truly live in a post fact world.

 

[nehalem256]

The difference here is a private responsibility vs a public responsibility.

The difference is that holding a job is essentially required for living. While voting isn't.

Again the cost associated with ID for everyone doesn't address absentee ballots, early voting ballots and the added cost of providing IDs to everyone plus the added delay at the voting booths. Again spend money to fix a problem that is virtually non existent.
How big should government be, I am guessing you want a small government.

So eliminate early voting ballot and greatly restrict absentee ballots. Want to bet that as soon as you did that Democrats would be throwing a fit about how THAT was discriminating against minorities? Oh wait they already do for restricting early voting

 

[werepossum]

What's interesting is that at this point he has abandoned any pretense that his position is actually based on facts or a real issue that he's trying to prevent. It's now "because something else happens that I don't like, people should have to do this".

We truly live in a post fact world.

Right now we have no real way to definitively say it is vote fraud if someone registers day of election using a fake name and/or address. Tens of thousands of the voter registration packets mailed out after the election are returned as no such person/no such address. To me, that indicates we have a problem. But as long as proggies manage to prevent any actual ID requirements, you can continue to deny that it's a problem.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think that going to the neighborhoods like Texas did is the right approach to making it easier to get an ID (Identification Certificate).

http://votetexas.gov/election-identification-certificate-mobile-stations/

 

[werepossum]

http://wewantvoterid.com/documents/2012_PVC_Report_Final.pdf

The “regular” election registration procedure requires a voter to register more than 20 days in advance of
an election, allowing time for the new voter’s addresses to be verified via PVC mailings. For someone
registering and voting on Election Day, however, address verification under current statutes and
regulations is not performed until after a new voter’s ballot has been accepted and counted.
The research findings herein demonstrate that in Minnesota’s last two statewide general election cycles,
thousands of PVC cards sent to Election Day registrants have been returned as undeliverable without a
valid explanation available (such as the voter moved). The unverifiable voters were flagged to be
challenged in future elections, but the ballots they cast on Election Day can’t be removed from the
election results.
6,224 Election Day registrants provided unverifiable names and/or addresses resulting in challenge due
to PVC returns for reasons other than forwarding addresses after voting in Minnesota’s 2008 general
election (a presidential election year).
1,244 Election Day registrants provided unverifiable addresses when voting in Minnesota’s 2010 election
(a non-presidential election year). As of March 1st, 2011, 399 of those individuals had been referred to
county attorneys for investigation under Minnesota Statute 201.121.
While not all returned PVC cards are the result of fraudulent registrations, the large number of
unexplained PVC returns is alarming. Even if only a fraction of these returned cards were the result of
fraudulent registrations, the numbers could be significant enough to affect the outcome of several
elections. In 2008, Minnesota’s US senate race was decided by just 312 votes and a state representative
was elected by just 13 votes in 2010.
Unexplainable, undeliverable postal verification cards are the best evidence currently available of voter
fraud by use of false names and/or addresses.
Although the PVC system makes it possible to detect fraudulent voting by use of assumed or fictitious
identities and/or addresses, prosecution is next to impossible under the current system. A voter using a
false name can’t be tracked after the fact. By examining the post-election evidence, it is impossible to
determine the real identity of a fraudulent voter who may have provided a false name. With suspicious
PVC returns in the thousands, it’s clear something more needs to be done to prevent and aid detection
and prosecution of fraudulent voting via false identity and/or residence. Only a Photo ID requirement
would correct this deficiency.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

eliminate early voting ballot and greatly restrict absentee ballots. Want to bet that as soon as you did that Democrats would be throwing a fit about how THAT was discriminating against minorities? Oh wait they already do for restricting early voting [/QUOTE]

So how do you propose someone whom is house bound vote or someone who may be deployed overseas?
I'm OK with limiting it but how about a solution that still allows more people to vote, like more than one day to make it to the polls and I still don't know how to make the previously mentioned people vote without some kind of mail in ballot.
Again you're going ape over a problem that is essentially non-existent.

 

[fskimospy]

Right now we have no real way to definitively say it is vote fraud if someone registers day of election using a fake name and/or address. Tens of thousands of the voter registration packets mailed out after the election are returned as no such person/no such address. To me, that indicates we have a problem. But as long as proggies manage to prevent any actual ID requirements, you can continue to deny that it's a problem.

This is a very strange argument to make. First of all if memory serves there are only 10 states that allow same day registration. Second, your argument is against same day registration, not for voter ID. Third, investigations have in fact been done into exactly what you're talking about. They returned no evidence of significant problems.

Sorry.

 

[fskimospy]

http://wewantvoterid.com/documents/2012_PVC_Report_Final.pdf

What's awesome is that you 1.) had to link an advocacy site instead of an objective one and 2.) despite it being YEARS since those incidents you mentioned there is no mention of actually substantiated claims.

As I've mentioned many times in the past, despite a concerted effort by Republicans at all levels of government to find in-person voter fraud in order to justify tightening voting standards, they have failed. Over and over again. An objective viewer might think that this means there isn't a problem. For conservatives this means they just aren't looking hard enough.

It is an article of faith that in-person voter fraud must be happening. (how else can they explain losing electionss?) Facts be damned.

 

[spacejamz]

You thought and you thought... and this is the best you could come up with? Wow.

Straight from the liberal playbook...deflect when you cannot answer the question directly...

If these minorities and lower income folks can't prove who they are to vote by simply providing a driver's license, how can they prove who they are to receive benefits? The question is even more relevant as Obamacare was intended to make coverage available to these same folks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Straight from the liberal playbook...deflect when you cannot answer the question directly...

Shameless hypocrisy. You're the one deflecting to "Obamacare" in a thread about voter rights.

If these minorities and lower income folks can't prove who they are to vote by simply providing a driver's license, how can they prove who they are to receive benefits? The question is even more relevant as Obamacare was intended to make coverage available to these same folks.

Perhaps hard for a statist to understand, but there are many ways to show identity besides a current, state-issued photo ID as required by most of these voter suppression laws. More to the point, I don't know about you, but I don't ever remember being asked for ID before I could receive health insurance, or before I could use that insurance at a doctor's office. I give the doctor my insurance card, and that's good enough.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right now we have no real way to definitively say it is vote fraud if someone registers day of election using a fake name and/or address. Tens of thousands of the voter registration packets mailed out after the election are returned as no such person/no such address. To me, that indicates we have a problem. But as long as proggies manage to prevent any actual ID requirements, you can continue to deny that it's a problem.

As Eskimospy points out, you've changed the subject to same-day registration rather than voter ID. I can't speak for others, but I'd be perfectly fine with requiring current, state-issued photo ID for same-day registration. I'm also fine with eliminating same-day registration entirely. But that's not the subject of this thread.

 

[werepossum]

As Eskimospy points out, you've changed the subject to same-day registration rather than voter ID. I can't speak for others, but I'd be perfectly fine with requiring current, state-issued photo ID for same-day registration. I'm also fine with eliminating same-day registration entirely. But that's not the subject of this thread.

Actually it pretty much is the subject of the thread as that is by far the easiest way to fraudulently vote in an election with almost zero chance of getting caught. If someone not legally qualified to vote registers before the election, or votes pretending to be someone else, there is at least some chance of uncovering the fraud, if not necessarily prosecuting the guilty. At the very least, one could contact every voter and verify that they did in fact vote. If a vote is registered in someone's name and that person did not vote, then fraud is pretty clear cut, even though there is no way to do anything about it. If however someone registers day of and his/her packet is returned undeliverable, it's merely a mystery with virtually no chance of ever getting caught or of even definitively proving the fraud.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually it pretty much is the subject of the thread as that is by far the easiest way to fraudulently vote in an election with almost zero chance of getting caught. If someone not legally qualified to vote registers before the election, or votes pretending to be someone else, there is at least some chance of uncovering the fraud, if not necessarily prosecuting the guilty. At the very least, one could contact every voter and verify that they did in fact vote. If a vote is registered in someone's name and that person did not vote, then fraud is pretty clear cut, even though there is no way to do anything about it. If however someone registers day of and his/her packet is returned undeliverable, it's merely a mystery with virtually no chance of ever getting caught or of even definitively proving the fraud.

No definitely not. Absentee ballots are by far the easiest way to commit voter fraud without being caught, both in the fact that you don't actually need to show your face anywhere and that you can submit large numbers of absentee ballots.

You will notice that conservatives pay a lot of attention to voter ID while almost entirely ignoring absentee ballot fraud. This is not an accident.