• 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 Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
For the antiVoter IDs

Can anyone provide the actual stats of how many voted in the past two national elections that did not have an ID.

I am not looking for estimates on how many people might not have one (this one is a FUD claim); but how many voted that did not have one.

And then how many that voted would refuse to vote because they could not want to get an ID?

That is the disenfranchised number; not the number that do not have an ID.
It doesn't matter, because that number is obviously greater than zero. Any level of disenfranchisement of legit citizens voting is unacceptable.

More than a few vote with expired ID showing their current address, with a combination of various forms of non-picture ID & with a signature matching that on file at their polling place.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It doesn't matter, because that number is obviously greater than zero. Any level of disenfranchisement of legit citizens voting is unacceptable.
Then why are you not railing against all the laws saying voters must register? Why only this law?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Yes, your question assumes all of that, and suffers from illegitimacy as a result.
No, it does not. Your twisting of reality is pretty plain for all to see.

If you do not wish to answer the question, simply do not answer it. Pretending the question is not legitimate is a stupid way to not answer the question. You act like a baby when a legitimate question is asked that you simply do not want to answer. Grow up and just ignore the question if you do not want to answer it.
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,158
1
81
http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

Pennsylvania has 23 cases of alleged election fraud since 2000. By category, Third Party Organizations had the highest percentage of accused at 39 percent (9 cases), followed by Election Official at 30 percent (7 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Registration Fraud at 43 percent (10 cases). The status of most cases was Unknown at 35 percent (8 cases). Responses to requests for public records varied from state to state. Some state and local officials were quick to respond by sending available records; others failed to provide a single document.
23 cases of election fraud since 2000 that Pennsylvania deemed serious enough to prosecute. There wasn't one instance of impersonating another voter - which is the point of these voter ID laws right?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Then why are you not railing against all the laws saying voters must register? Why only this law?
I support election day registration, and have said so in the past. I've also shown how registration aids in allocating voting resources. The vast majority will & obviously do register quite painlessly for free, even online, and stragglers can easily be accommodated by voter friendly statutes.

Your arguments are circular & diversionary. When one fails, you just drag out one of the usual alternates, like a dog digging up something dead & buried out in the yard, dragging it into the house over & over again. It stunk up the place the first time, and always will.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I support election day registration, and have said so in the past.
Why have registration at all? Why should someone have to prove they are allowed to vote if they are not required to prove who they are to vote? What is the point in it? What about those who cannot prove they are allowed to vote, but actually are qualified? Why do you not care about their votes?

Why don't you ever create threads lambasting voter registration laws since you claim you are against laws which prevent qualified voters from voting?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
No, it does not. Your twisting of reality is pretty plain for all to see.

If you do not wish to answer the question, simply do not answer it. Pretending the question is not legitimate is a stupid way to not answer the question. You act like a baby when a legitimate question is asked that you simply do not want to answer. Grow up and just ignore the question if you do not want to answer it.
Heh. Legitimate questions are based on legitimate premises, and you have none. I'll continue to point that out.

Illegitimate questions include:

Have you quit beating your wife?

When did you realize you were gay?

and so forth.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Why have registration at all? Why should someone have to prove they are allowed to vote if they are not required to prove who they are to vote? What is the point in it? What about those who cannot prove they are allowed to vote, but actually are qualified? Why do you not care about their votes?

Why don't you ever create threads lambasting voter registration laws since you claim you are against laws which prevent qualified voters from voting?
Round & round in duh-versionary circles. I've shown elsewhere how voting officials use registrations to allocate voting machines & paper ballots for electronic scan machines in anticipation of likely voter turnout. They also use registration to verify voter eligibility in advance of election day. They cross check with various databases available to them to assure a smooth & honest voting process.

Registration is absolutely free, made even more convenient by the nominal expense of $.44 for a stamp. It's even easier in truly voter friendly jurisdictions allowing online registration.

We've had this discussion previously, with your position revealed for the dishonest diversion that it is. We can continue to do so, if you insist, but your continuous circling back to failed arguments won't make them any less failed.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Round & round in duh-versionary circles. I've shown elsewhere how voting officials use registrations to allocate voting machines & paper ballots for electronic scan machines in anticipation of likely voter turnout. They also use registration to verify voter eligibility in advance of election day. They cross check with various databases available to them to assure a smooth & honest voting process.

Registration is absolutely free, made even more convenient by the nominal expense of $.44 for a stamp. It's even easier in truly voter friendly jurisdictions allowing online registration.

We've had this discussion previously, with your position revealed for the dishonest diversion that it is. We can continue to do so, if you insist, but your continuous circling back to failed arguments won't make them any less failed.
Exactly, plus there are many groups who help people register, making the process truly free instead of pretend-free like photo IDs.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Heh. Legitimate questions are based on legitimate premises, and you have none. I'll continue to point that out.
Then why do you not realize your whining about photo ID requirements is not legitimate?

Exactly, plus there are many groups who help people register, making the process truly free instead of pretend-free like photo IDs.
Photo IDs are 100% free as well, but you both already know that. Stop lying about it, it is WAY too easy to prove you are lying. As Bowfinger loves to say "stop purposefully spreading misinformation".

A question for both of you, can you vote if you do not register to vote? We all know voter registration prevents otherwise legitimate voters from voting. Why do you both want to prevent people from voting?

Pretending you do not support voter suppression when you support voter registration is stupid, you know you are.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Why do you continue to parrot propaganda you know to be false?
Free Pa. Photo ID Available Starting Today

August 28, 2012 9:58 AM

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Starting today, a new Pennsylvania ID is being made available to help potential voters get ready for the November election.

This new state-issued ID is designed for residents who can’t get ID because they lack documentation like a birth certificate.
“I’m just coming home from the penitentiary, and I was down seven years and I don’t have any ID or anything now,” says William Harris from North Philadelphia. “So I’m coming here to get voter ID, they said it’s free if you don’t have the information to get it.”
Harris says he was able to get his ID card without any problems.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/08/28/free-pa-photo-id-available-starting-today/

Have you forgotten again that willfully spreading misinformation is a violation of forum rules?
Obviously you have. Why do you repeatedly break the rules and lie about the photo ID not being free when it has been shown to you, over and over again, that the photo ID is free?

You have been shown again that it is free...and NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE NEEDED. Care to continue your lies?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/08/28/free-pa-photo-id-available-starting-today/



Obviously you have. Why do you repeatedly break the rules and lie about the photo ID not being free when it has been shown to you, over and over again, that the photo ID is free?

You have been shown again that it is free...and NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE NEEDED. Care to continue your lies?
Pennsylvania is only one of the states with voter photo ID laws, and even in Pennsylvania the "free" IDs do not apply if you were born in other states. Further, the Pennsylvania process requires traveling to a PA DL office, often in another county, and often requiring many hours. It therefore imposes transportation costs except for those within walking distance, and may require loss of a day's pay.

You have been told all this before, or course, yet due to your pathological dishonesty you will once again disregard it. You will no doubt continue parroting this dishonest propaganda because you have no integrity or moral character whatsoever. It's what makes you such a perfect 21st century Republican.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
So what's the point of the new form of Pennsylvania voter ID, anyway, if voters can get it with the same forms of ID they could formerly use directly for voting?

Other than saving face, maybe avoiding negative court rulings & being a pain in the ass to obtain, thus partially fulfilling the voter suppression aims of Pennsylvania Repubs?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So what's the point of the new form of Pennsylvania voter ID, anyway, if voters can get it with the same forms of ID they could formerly use directly for voting?

Other than saving face, maybe avoiding negative court rulings & being a pain in the ass to obtain, thus partially fulfilling the voter suppression aims of Pennsylvania Repubs?
I believe you answered your own question. Much of the same voter suppression benefit with even less pretense of actually addressing (virtually non-existent) in-person vote fraud.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
For the antiVoter IDs

Can anyone provide the actual stats of how many voted in the past two national elections that did not have an ID.

I am not looking for estimates on how many people might not have one (this one is a FUD claim); but how many voted that did not have one.

And then how many that voted would refuse to vote because they could not want to get an ID?

That is the disenfranchised number; not the number that do not have an ID.
It doesn't matter, because that number is obviously greater than zero. Any level of disenfranchisement of legit citizens voting is unacceptable.

More than a few vote with expired ID showing their current address, with a combination of various forms of non-picture ID & with a signature matching that on file at their polling place.
It makes a big difference; the numbers.

there is evidence of voter fraud. Therer is a number that is greater than one.

At this point; you have a open issue of potentials becuase of a study;

No one had provided hard numbers.
The fact of voter fraud has hard numbers on those that have been caught; not on those that slip through the cracks.

But the anti-ID is stating that the estimated numbers of those that could slip through the cracks should be counted.

Estimates are estimates; facts are facts;
fighting facts with estimates indicates a lack of confidence in that actual numbers; Or are there no actual numbers of those the would be disfranchised not by choice
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Pennsylvania is only one of the states with voter photo ID laws, and even in Pennsylvania the "free" IDs do not apply if you were born in other states. Further, the Pennsylvania process requires traveling to a PA DL office, often in another county, and often requiring many hours. It therefore imposes transportation costs except for those within walking distance, and may require loss of a day's pay.

You have been told all this before, or course, yet due to your pathological dishonesty you will once again disregard it. You will no doubt continue parroting this dishonest propaganda because you have no integrity or moral character whatsoever. It's what makes you such a perfect 21st century Republican.
1) What county in PA does not have a DL office
2) What county in PA has a DL that has not been open at least one Sat over the past 9 months.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
1) What county in PA does not have a DL office
2) What county in PA has a DL that has not been open at least one Sat over the past 9 months.
1. See Perk's post #41 in this thread
2. Not everyone works five days per week, Monday through Friday. Public transportation options are commonly limited or non-existent on weekends as well.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
It makes a big difference; the numbers.

there is evidence of voter fraud. Therer is a number that is greater than one.

At this point; you have a open issue of potentials becuase of a study;

No one had provided hard numbers.
The fact of voter fraud has hard numbers on those that have been caught; not on those that slip through the cracks.

But the anti-ID is stating that the estimated numbers of those that could slip through the cracks should be counted.

Estimates are estimates; facts are facts;
fighting facts with estimates indicates a lack of confidence in that actual numbers; Or are there no actual numbers of those the would be disfranchised not by choice
That is a specious line of reasoning. First, when dealing with large populations, it is standard to use statistical projections rather than actual counts. It is both unreasonable and unnecessary to talk to 300 million individuals every time one wants to make a decision.

Second, the responsibility for performing such statistical analysis should fall to those pushing photo IDs. If they were truly interested in good public policy, they would be able to tell us how much in-person fraud there is, how much fraud photo IDs will prevent, and how many people will be disenfranchised. My guess is they do have that data, and it tells them how effective these suppression laws will be. They won't share that information, of course, because suppression is the goal, not the side effect.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Pennsylvania is only one of the states with voter photo ID laws
I realize you might not be smart enough to actually understand, so I will explain it to you. When you clicked the words that said "Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration", you entered a thread discussing Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration. Other states are not Pennsylvania, so you mentioning them is both irrelevant and quite stupid.

, and even in Pennsylvania the "free" IDs do not apply if you were born in other states.
Support your statement, else it is just another in your long list of lies you love to tell.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
1. See Perk's post #41 in this thread
2. Not everyone works five days per week, Monday through Friday. Public transportation options are commonly limited or non-existent on weekends as well.
He never bothered to follow up with any facts after all his allegations. Post 41 is useless. It contains a lot of specious words and no real support. It is an opinion post, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Second, the responsibility for performing such statistical analysis should fall to those pushing photo IDs.
Nope, the legal system says the onus falls on those who claim the law is not needed...not on those who created and passed the law. Sorry, but you are wrong again, as usual.

From the ruling (you know, actual facts and not lies which you thrive on):

II. Preliminary Injunction Standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must establish that: (1) relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages; (2) greater injury will occur from refusing to grant the injunction than from granting it; (3) the injunction will restore the parties to their status quo as it existed before the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and, (6) the public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. Brayman Constr. Com. v. Dep't of Transp.,
608 Pa. 584, 13 A.3d 925 (2011).

"For a preliminary injunction to issue, every one of these prerequisites must be established; if the petitioner fails to establish any one of them, there is no need to address the others."

Petitioners did not establish, however, that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable. On the contrary, the more credible evidence on this issue was that offered through Commonwealth witnesses.16 I was convinced that effortsby the Department of State (DOS), the Department of Health, PennDOT, and other Commonwealth agencies and interested groups will fully educate the public, and that DOS, PennDOT and the Secretaries of those agencies will comply with the mandates of Section 206 of the Election Code. Further, I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a non-partisan, even&shy;handed manner.


In their post-hearing brief, Petitioners argue that the plan to create a new DOS photo ID is a legally insufficient basis to avoid a preliminary injunction. They rely primarily on out-of-state authority.18 Unfortunately, none of the cases upon which Petitioners rely involved a facial challenge to a presumably constitutional statute. Moreover, believable evidence regarding the new DOS photo ID is clearly relevant here to the "immediacy" or inevitability of harm element of proof. For these reasons, Petitioners' post-hearing argument is not persuasive.

http://media.philly.com/documents/CMW330MD2012ApplewhiteDetermPrelimInj_081512.pdf


The Truth Will Set You Free.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
I realize you might not be smart enough to actually understand, so I will explain it to you. When you clicked the words that said "Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration", you entered a thread discussing Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration. Other states are not Pennsylvania, so you mentioning them is both irrelevant and quite stupid.



Support your statement, else it is just another in your long list of lies you love to tell.
Pennsylvania is just a part of a broader national voter suppression effort sponsored by Repubs, something worth mentioning in passing, which is what Bowfinger has done.

His reference to "free" ID is in regard to birth certificates required for conventional ID in Pennsylvania. They may be free to people born there, but generally are not for Pennsylvania residents born in other states. Much the same applies to court records documenting name changes from marriage & divorce.

So what *is* the point of the new easier to obtain voter ID, anyway?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Pennsylvania is just a part of a broader national voter suppression effort sponsored by Repubs, something worth mentioning in passing, which is what Bowfinger has done.
No, there are many other threads for that. He, and you, both simply realized you lost wrt PA and therefor are trying to change the topic.

His reference to "free" ID is in regard to birth certificates required for conventional ID in Pennsylvania. They may be free to people born there, but generally are not for Pennsylvania residents born in other states. Much the same applies to court records documenting name changes from marriage & divorce.
Birth Certificates are not required to get a voter ID. Saying they are, after being shown that it is not, is a blatant lie.

So what *is* the point of the new easier to obtain voter ID, anyway?
To show you are the person you claim you are when you vote. We started with this information.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY