• 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 8 - 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
61,652
13,733
136
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):


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


The Truth Will Set You Free.
Heh. In sending the matter back to the court for re-evaluation, the Pennsylvania SCOTUS invalidated that ruling, narrowed the Judge's discretion to do what he tried to do the first time. I doubt it'll pass muster the second time around. They've tried to tie his hands- we'll see if he can wriggle free.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
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.
Piss off, twit. This thread has become about voter IDs in general, just like all the previous voter suppression threads. You're just playing your usual childish semantics games to pretend you weren't lying earlier.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
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.
Your post is an opinion post, and a dishonest one at that. I choose to dismiss your childish duhversion rather than Perk's far more substantive and informative post. I am quite confident 95% of P&N will choose similarly. So, dance, little Pinochhio boy, dance, even though you do it so poorly. Sush brainless entertainment is all you have to offer us.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
:D When Bowfinger loses, he tries to change the subject into something else! :D

Bowfinger, you lost. Face it. Your attempt to change the subject into something else to hide it is obvious and it failed as well.

:D Bowfinger, the gift that keeps giving.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Your post is an opinion post, and a dishonest one at that. I choose to dismiss your childish duhversion rather than Perk's far more substantive and informative post. I am quite confident 95% of P&N will choose similarly. So, dance, little Pinochhio boy, dance, even though you do it so poorly. Sush brainless entertainment is all you have to offer us.
His post holds no facts at all, it is all nothing but opinion. He did not support a single one of his statements. You claiming unsupported opinions are fact makes you look even sillier than you normally look.

You should quite while you are far behind, not double down on stupid.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Heh. In sending the matter back to the court for re-evaluation, the Pennsylvania SCOTUS invalidated that ruling, narrowed the Judge's discretion to do what he tried to do the first time. I doubt it'll pass muster the second time around. They've tried to tie his hands- we'll see if he can wriggle free.
No, it did not. Did you bother to actually read the SCOPA ruling? It is in this thread, I recommend reading...you will then realize how wrong you were here.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Again I ask - where is the numbers to back up the guess at disenfranchising.

How many voters do not have the proper ID.
Of those how many will be unable to get the proper ID.


Those are the only numbers that count.

Studies show that x people do not have IDs.
Those studies do not indicate how many actually voted.
Those studies also do not indicate how many would not vote because of ID.
You made my point. We don't go around disenfranchising people for rumors and possibilities.

Show us a real verifiable problem with voter fraud, that affects election results. Then you can talk about how to fix it.

Otherwise you are just making shit up as usual to get what you want (suppression of votes you don't like)

Free country remember? Innocent until proven guilty? Voter fraud is a crime, just like murder or any other crime.

You want to make onerous restrictions on our privileges? Back it up with a really good reason.

And since you conveniently ignore it time and again, there is no evidence this law will change anything regarding voter fraud. Why have a law if it doesn't change anything.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Has anyone else noticed that we actually started to have constructive discussion in this thread again, then Cybrsage plopped back in and we're back to pointless noise? Such is the consistent theme of this thread, and most P&N threads these days. Sad.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
There is roughtly 1,000 miles between Florida and Pennsylvania. You flunked geography class, didn't you? Here, look at the eastern side of the US. Florida is at the bottom, Pennsylvania is touches Canada via the chimney.


Lots of proof that Florida and Pennsylvania are not only not the same place, but are rather far apart from each other. I posted the map as the final nail in your coffin.
Hey, you are the banned troll who has been vacationed how many times here? I see you are pushing for another vacation from here.

Like I said, AND YOU IGNORED, two states are doing the same thing , and in both cases GOP members have admitted there is no voter fraud, and it is to help eliminate Dem voters.

Now you can continue with your intentional lying (but remember those forum rules, the ones you get vacationed for!), but if you disagree, post some proof of real voter fraud.

We will all be here waiting for you. Otherwise, you are ignoring the facts and lying (hello forum violations!). I know Google is hard for you, since you have already shown you don't really understand it, but try hard to find some real facts.

And why haven't you lost your bet like a man and left? I mean really, can't even be trusted to honor a bet.

Once again, post evidence taht shows there is real voter fraud that these bills will stop.

Or post evidence refuting that the GOP is on record saying that this is to disenfranchise Dem voters and help Romney win. If you don't produce evidence, we will have to report you for intentional thread crapping and intentional lying. We have made our case, you are just trolling at this point.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Has anyone else noticed that we actually started to have constructive discussion in this thread again, then Cybrsage plopped back in and we're back to pointless noise? Such is the consistent theme of this thread, and most P&N threads these days. Sad.
Pretty much nail on head... seems like someone is hell bent on firing up another sock puppet...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
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.
By the same token, shouldn't the state have the obligation to come pick you up and transport you to and from the polls so that you don't incur "transportation costs" to exercise your right to vote? After all, people who cannot make it to the DMV certainly can't be expected to walk to the polls.

When ACORN was caught registering thousands of imaginary people, proggies said it didn't matter because imaginary people don't vote. Now those same proggies are fighting tooth and manicured nail against voter ID. Coincidence?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Has anyone else noticed that we actually started to have constructive discussion in this thread again, then Cybrsage plopped back in and we're back to pointless noise? Such is the consistent theme of this thread, and most P&N threads these days. Sad.
No, you were holding a circle jerk of lies when I stepped in and told you to stop lying and to pull your pants back up. That makes you mad.

At least you stopped lying and claiming Perknose's opinion post had any actual support in it.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Has anyone else noticed that we actually started to have constructive discussion in this thread again, then Cybrsage plopped back in and we're back to pointless noise? Such is the consistent theme of this thread, and most P&N threads these days. Sad.
++

Couldn't have anything to do with the intentional lying, deceitfulness and trolling he does, now could it?

I mean I have twice asked for proof of voter fraud, and all he can do is post a map saying FL and Penn aren't the same state.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
No, you are confusing me with yourself. Since you confused me with your lame self, I ignored the rest of your invalid rant.
Aww, poor troll can't make a case, so he tries to ignore it. I'll make it simple for you, "So easy even a troll can understand it".

Post proof of cases of real voter fraud that affected an election. It should be easy right? Since you claim there is fraud.

Also post proof refuting what GOP officials in two states have claimed, namely that they (the GOP) are doing this for voter suppression, and that voter fraud was not and has not ever been a problem.

If you don't, we will all know you are trolling, and intentionally violating forum rules (once again, for like the 10,000th time). Since you claim to want the rules enforced, you should have no problem following the rules and posting proof of your claims.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Post proof of cases of real voter fraud that affected an election. It should be easy right? Since you claim there is fraud.
Every case of voter fraud affects an election.

That said, those who want a law removed have the onus on showing WHY it must be removed. The state does not have to prove why the law is needed.

So if you want this law removed, YOU must show it. I know, I know, that is work, and you are allergic to work...but give it a shot.

I mean I have twice asked for proof of voter fraud, and all he can do is post a map saying FL and Penn aren't the same state.
When you confuse Florida with Pennsylvania, I have to start from the beginning and show you they are not the same thing. You know this, but your hubris prevents you from admitting it. No surprise.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Fraud has been proven to exist.

Until you catch them; how can it be proven?

The liberals like to use the catch fact. This is similar to the verification of an ant problem.
Everyone you see; many more are hiding.
[/B]
Since Eaglekeeper has bailed out I guess since he has no evidence, let me help him and cybrtroll learn:

Link

New voting laws in 23 of the 50 states could keep more than 10 million Hispanic U.S. citizens from registering and voting, a new study said on Sunday, a number so large it could affect the outcome of the November 6 election.
Republican-led state legislatures have passed most of the new laws since the party won sweeping victories in state and local elections in 2010. They say the laws are meant to prevent voter fraud; critics say they are designed to reduce turnout among groups that typically back Democrats.

Decades of study have found virtually no use of false identification in U.S. elections or voting by non-citizens. Activists say the bigger problem in the United States, where most elections see turnout of well under 60 percent, is that eligible Americans do not bother to vote.
(bold mine)

Gee, how about that? 404 no voter fraud found, but up to 10million people might be prevented from voting.

So is it still worth it?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Since Eaglekeeper has bailed out I guess since he has no evidence, let me help him and the very sexy cybrsage learn:

Link



(bold mine)

Gee, how about that? 404 no voter fraud found, but up to 10million people might be prevented from voting.

So is it still worth it?
First, Pennsylvania is only one state (technically it is a commonwealth). It is not 20 states. You keep confusing other states with Pennsylvania. You really need to learn the different to stop yourself from posting stupid things.

Second, why do you keep pretending COULD means WILL? People not bothering to go to PennDOT to get their FREE voter ID is no ones fault by the person who does not bother to do it.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Every case of voter fraud affects an election.

That said, those who want a law removed have the onus on showing WHY it must be removed. The state does not have to prove why the law is needed.

So if you want this law removed, YOU must show it. I know, I know, that is work, and you are allergic to work...but give it a shot.



When you confuse Florida with Pennsylvania, I have to start from the beginning and show you they are not the same thing. You know this, but your hubris prevents you from admitting it. No surprise.
So, in other words, you got nothing, and refuse to defend your position, and
will troll instead. Got it. Reported to the mods.

And unless an election is decided by one vote, a single vote affected by fraud doesn't do jack, and you know that, but you can't admit it since your house of cards would come tumbling down. (kinda like the whole WMD lie you persisted with).

-Post proof of voter fraud that has changed an election.

-Post proof refuting what the GOP has said, that they are doing it for voter suppression.

Two simple questions, too bad you can't provide answers, and can only lie and troll.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So, in other words, you got nothing, and refuse to defend your position, and
will troll instead. Got it. Reported to the mods.

And unless an election is decided by one vote, a single vote affected by fraud doesn't do jack, and you know that, but you can't admit it since your house of cards would come tumbling down. (kinda like the whole WMD lie you persisted with).

-Post proof of voter fraud that has changed an election.
Every single case of voter fraud has changed an election.

-Post proof refuting what the GOP has said, that they are doing it for voter suppression.
You have yet to show the GOP claims these laws are to suppress legal voters. So far, I have only seem claims which say the DNC will be hurt by losing all the illegal voters they current enjoy.

Two simple questions, too bad you can't provide answers, and can only lie and troll.
They have been answered multiple times. I think you keep forgetting because your brain is full trying to remember that PA is only one state and that Florida or New York are different states from PA. A lot for you to remember, I know.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So, in other words, you got nothing, and refuse to defend your position, and
will troll instead. Got it. Reported to the mods.

And unless an election is decided by one vote, a single vote affected by fraud doesn't do jack, and you know that, but you can't admit it since your house of cards would come tumbling down. (kinda like the whole WMD lie you persisted with).

-Post proof of voter fraud that has changed an election.

-Post proof refuting what the GOP has said, that they are doing it for voter suppression.

Two simple questions, too bad you can't provide answers, and can only lie and troll.
MN 2008 Senate race. 113 people were convicted of voter fraud. And up to 2800 cases were identified.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
By the same token, shouldn't the state have the obligation to come pick you up and transport you to and from the polls so that you don't incur "transportation costs" to exercise your right to vote? After all, people who cannot make it to the DMV certainly can't be expected to walk to the polls.
I know you're trying to be cute, but yes, in an ideal world, it would be great for the government to provide transportation for those who lack their own means to the polls. Fortunately, the parties will often provide that service on request. Pragmatically, it's also reasonably easy to find a friend or neighbor who is also headed to the polls on election day, especially since the polls are somewhere nearby.

The problem with photo IDs is that such resources are often not readily available. It's easy to catch a ride with a neighbor who's heading to the polls only a couple of miles away. It's not so easy to find someone to drive 100 miles or more (round trip) to sit in a DMV office for much of the day just so you can jump through hoops. That is a substantial imposition compared to a ride to the local polls.

Edit: I meant to add that in an earlier thread, I stated I would consider supporting voter photo ID laws if the state actually went to the homes of those who cannot readily travel, ensuring that such people were able to meet these new ID requirements. This also includes providing such IDs free of ANY charges whatsoever, including any documentation costs.


When ACORN was caught registering thousands of imaginary people, proggies said it didn't matter because imaginary people don't vote.
Which, as I remember it, was shown to be true. I believe there was but a single example found of someone actually voting on one of those phony registrations, and that was some Breitbart wannabe who broke the law to prove how much of a problem it was.

I don't want to rehash the ACORN issue again, but in brief the driver there wasn't any thought of fraudulent voting. It was a bunch of poorly-supervised temps who figured out they could cheat ACORN and more easily meet their quotas by forging registrations. It was also noteworthy that ACORN, itself, flagged those registrations as suspicious, but they were required by law to submit them anyway.


Now those same proggies are fighting tooth and manicured nail against voter ID. Coincidence?
"Coincidence"? No. I believe the phrase you're looking for is either "non sequitur" or "red herring". I'm not sure which is most appropriate given that both involve connecting unrelated things. Perhaps a Liberal Arts major can provide a ruling from the field.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
MN 2008 Senate race. 113 people were convicted of voter fraud. And up to 2800 cases were identified.
1. There is no proof those votes changed the result. It's simply an unsupported talking point parroted by the RNC faithful. The fact is we don't know what effect they had, if any.

2. You've once again failed to mention that those 113 ineligible votes would NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY PHOTO VOTER IDs since they were all properly registered and voting as themselves. It is an absolutely worthless example when discussing photo IDs. The only reason you keep flogging it is because you have no legitimate examples.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,733
136
No, it did not. Did you bother to actually read the SCOPA ruling? It is in this thread, I recommend reading...you will then realize how wrong you were here.
Excerpted from the ruling- forgive the formatting-

Upon review, we find that the disconnect between what the Law prescribes and how it is being implemented has created a number of conceptual difficulties in addressing the legal issues raised. Initially, the focus on short-term implementation, which has become necessary given that critical terms of the statute have themselves become irrelevant, is in tension with the framing of Appellants’ challenge to the Law as a facial one (or one contesting the Law’s application across the widest range of circumstances). In this regard, however, we agree with Appellants’ essential position that if a statute violates constitutional norms in the short term, a facial challenge may be sustainable even though the statute might validly be enforced at some time in the future. Indeed, the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate.
Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith.
Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is returned to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
Or, what I offered earlier. The whole thing-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY