• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Ruling: Judge Halts Enforcement Of Law For Election

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
28,678
9,270
136
Mail fraud you really think that would deter a potential criminal? Isn't there already laws against casting illegal votes why isn't that enough to stop them? Can you say you're really for adding more postal inspectors to the federal budget? Giving 9 month's notice that I would bet hasn't been communicated too well to somebody to get an appropriate ID at some RMV that has multi-hour wait or simply hoping somebody who is too old or too ill to leave home will somehow make it there and tolerate the wait really isn't realistic to expect in a few month's.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
It has gone through two courts.
The plaintiffs have not demonstrated disenfranchisement. ...
That's not what I read. In the original ruling, the judge acknowledged that some groups were disproportionately burdened by the law. He said he couldn't do anything about that, however, since the suit sought relief for all residents rather than just that subset of residents. In other words, he lacked the authority to unilaterally narrow the scope.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Mail fraud you really think that would deter a potential criminal? Isn't there already laws against casting illegal votes why isn't that enough to stop them? Can you say you're really for adding more postal inspectors to the federal budget? Giving 9 month's notice that I would bet hasn't been communicated too well to somebody to get an appropriate ID at some RMV that has multi-hour wait or simply hoping somebody who is too old or too ill to leave home will somehow make it there and tolerate the wait really isn't realistic to expect in a few month's.
Postal mail fraud would be lower on the list than in person fraud. However, the USPS at least has the teeth and manpower if directed.

I agree, a person that has not been out in the fresh air for a month or two is now going to go chasing for an ID. I also expect that they are not going to get out and vote either; to much effort. this is the excuse of those that procrastinated and were encouraged to do so.

However, given 8-10 months lead time and knowing that they need the ID generates a different incentive than the excuse that it is to hard. this is the fault of the anti-ID crowd; rather than convey the urgency of getting the ID; they made excuses to not do so.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I don't know your specifics, but I assume if one cares about voting and makes it to the voting booth then they can also visit the DMV for a photo ID.
The issue with that, as has been pointed out roughly 100 times already, is that polls are nearby and there are many other people in your neighborhood headed to them on Election Day. DMVs, in contrast, are often an hour or more away, and one is much less likely to find someone headed there who can offer a lift.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,399
584
126
Postal mail fraud would be lower on the list than in person fraud. However, the USPS at least has the teeth and manpower if directed.

I agree, a person that has not been out in the fresh air for a month or two is now going to go chasing for an ID. I also expect that they are not going to get out and vote either; to much effort. this is the excuse of those that procrastinated and were encouraged to do so.

However, given 8-10 months lead time and knowing that they need the ID generates a different incentive than the excuse that it is to hard. this is the fault of the anti-ID crowd; rather than convey the urgency of getting the ID; they made excuses to not do so.
Wasn't one of the problems that the PA DMV only had resources to process all the required registered voters that didn't have ID in a span of 7 months, and this was if the DMV did NOTHING else for that time frame? I have no idea if the number is correct, but it was bandied about somewhere.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Wasn't one of the problems that the PA DMV only had resources to process all the required registered voters that didn't have ID in a span of 7 months, and this was if the DMV did NOTHING else for that time frame? I have no idea if the number is correct, but it was bandied about somewhere.
Resources were not allocated while the law was being challenged. Had they geared up when the law went into effect, it would be a moot point.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
The issue with that, as has been pointed out roughly 100 times already, is that polls are nearby and there are many other people in your neighborhood headed to them on Election Day. DMVs, in contrast, are often an hour or more away, and one is much less likely to find someone headed there who can offer a lift.
There are community volunteers that if put to the task could help. Instead such only complained.

People had 8 months and did not do it. You really expect that they will do it in the next 13 months?

The vaulted community organizations that are able to register people all over will fail to help the same people get the needed Id.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,175
3,182
136
There are community volunteers that if put to the task could help. Instead such only complained.

People had 8 months and did not do it. You really expect that they will do it in the next 13 months?

The vaulted community organizations that are able to register people all over will fail to help the same people get the needed Id.
Then the law may get injoined again if the state can't find a way to make it work.

Heard on the local PA news only 10000 voter IDs have been issued to date. Hundreds of thousands (750k) were identified as needing ID.

Abysmal implementation so far
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
Somehow the law was a ploy to get Romney reelected but also somehow this decision isn't a ploy to get Obama reelected. Gotcha.
Little Billy cheats and lies to win points for his team. Little Johnny calls him out on it and hinders further cheating from Billy. Little Johnny has now cheated to win points for his team.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
That's not what I read. In the original ruling, the judge acknowledged that some groups were disproportionately burdened by the law. He said he couldn't do anything about that, however, since the suit sought relief for all residents rather than just that subset of residents. In other words, he lacked the authority to unilaterally narrow the scope.
The judge would not allow cherry picking. As a group, it had not been shown if the government carried through on its obligations.

Because the government could not deliver by this election, the requirement was stayed for a year. This reduced the cram on the government and also allowed time to heat up to the support level anticipated.

Now if everyone who needs an ID decides go wait until next Sept to overflow the facilities...
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Then the law may get injoined again if the state can't find a way to make it work.

Heard on the local PA news only 10000 voter IDs have been issued to date. Hundreds of thousands (750k) were identified as needing ID.

Abysmal implementation so far
I expect that only 75% at most will follow through.

I think the 750K is a number nationwide estimate or intended to be FUD #s
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,658
13,740
136
&#4314;(&#3232;_&#3232;)&#4314;



Says a lot when the judge has to cite how shitty the state is at doing its job in order to invalidate a law requiring ID. The law has been on the books for six months but somehow that isn't long enough for the state to get their shit together and provide for the ID's.
Well, golly gee whiz, the inability to get their shit together wasn't intentional, was it? Couldn't Be!

Only after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court put the handwriting on the wall did the State relent from practices of deliberate disenfranchisement & actually follow the law, a scant 6 weeks before the election.

Now we get the plea of implausible deniability from Pennsylvania Repubs- We wuz tryin', honest!

Yeh, we know what you were trying, and it didn't work, so go cry those crocodile tears somewhere else, OK?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Hmmm....lets look at the top "swing states" in the Presidential Election (gotten from 538)

Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Pennsylvania

Now lets look at GOP sponsored laws to restrict voting:

Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Pennsylvania.

Wow, look at that: 8 out of 10 states are considered swing states (including all the "big" swing states) all have the GOP trying to introduce "voter fraud" laws. Shocking.

That must be pure coincidence, right? I mean it's not like the GOP members have openly admitted that voter fraud is a non-issue, and it's all about disenfranchising voters that predominately vote Dem?

I mean a former state GOP chair hasn't claimed that, now has he? A Penn state congressman isn't on record as saying that the Penn law will help Romney win the state and election? right? LOL
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
1) Mail in fraud is partially controlled by the US Postal system - See previous post

2) the State should make the ID cheap if not free - otherwise it would be claimed to be a poll tax - that is illegal per USSC.

3) this has been going around for years with the same results - people complaining about disenfranchising a certain group that is unable to get off their duff to get an ID. Yet those same advocates have yet to show any stats on people that vote that do not have an ID and of those; which will refuse to get an ID if required.

The PA was done after the last middle election - the timing is the fact that the state did not try to prepare for such. No matter what the election cycle is; there will be people complaining that the election is being tainted of they need more time.

If one can not get their tail moving in 9-10 months to get an ID after the original law was passed, why would you think they would do so period.
See the thread I started on this topic. And of course now that there are actual studies that document significant suppression of voting by otherwise qualified voters that don't have the necessary ID, and also document essentially non-existent voter ID fraud, you're opposed to these voter ID laws.

What? You still think voter ID laws are great? Guess you really weren't interested in facts after all.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
25,505
1,087
126
Voter ID laws of course exist to suppress the poor or the lazy or the procrastinators. It's a very puritan idea, and quite a terrible one when you look at it from a "rights" point of view.

The right to vote is a right. You can be the laziest asshole in the world, you should still have your right to vote. Only when you cross the line into crime, should you forfeit that right.
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
Prove it.

Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)</SPAN>


AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.


There ya go...
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)</SPAN>


AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.


There ya go...
The voting rights act is not in the constitution and therefore is no guarantee, or right. It only says that you can't be prohibited from voting for specific reasons. It doesn't say that voting guaranteed no matter what. Slight difference but it has huge meaning. The ACT tells the state what they can't do and not what you can do.

The ACT can go away as easily as it was passed. Is a right something that can be taken away without reason? Is a right something given to you by the state?
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
The voting rights act is not in the constitution and therefore is no guarantee, or right. It only says that you can't be prohibited from voting for specific reasons. It doesn't say that voting guaranteed no matter what. Slight difference but it has huge meaning. The ACT tells the state what they can't do and not what you can do.

The ACT can go away as easily as it was passed. Is a right something that can be taken away without reason? Is a right something given to you by the state?
read the bolded print. It clarifies the 15 amendment, but please read the 15th amendment, which states the same thing.

Text of the 15th Amendment

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
read the bolded print. It clarifies the 15 amendment, but please read the 15th amendment, which states the same thing.

Text of the 15th Amendment

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
And how is providing proof of identify any of the above.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
read the bolded print. It clarifies the 15 amendment, but please read the 15th amendment, which states the same thing.

Text of the 15th Amendment

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Again, telling the state what it can't do. It says what they can't do under certain conditions as well. So this "right" is still limited by what the State does. Nowhere is there an explanation of this "right to vote". Nowhere is it stated that you hold this "right" innately.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
Prove it.
You were parroting this nonsense in another thread, so I'll copy my response over here.

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Twelfth Amendment (overwrites portions of Article 2, Section 1 not quoted above):
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Fifteenth Amendment, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Nineteenth Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Twenty-fourth Amendment, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Twenty-sixth Amendment, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
The US Constitution has an awful lot of amendments detailing the expansion of the "right to vote." But if the US Constitution isn't good enough for you, we also have some Federal Legislation aptly titled The Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has held a broad interpretation of the right to vote since the passage of the 14th Amendment and the adoption of the Equal Protection Clause. It is asinine to state that we don't have a "right to vote;" no judiciary in the country would agree with that assessment.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY