• 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 Trial Set

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,400
51
91
Registering has always been sufficient, why is it no longer sufficient? Because cameras were invented? Did our forefathers have to carry around miniature paintings of themselves to prove they had the right to vote?
So then why would we need a picture with a driver's license now too? The police should trust me that I say I am who I am without need of a valid drivers license with photo.

It's because some people are asshats and will try to get away with things if they can. Most people are good citizens. Laws are usually made to stop the A-Holes that try and scam the system--whether it's people or corporations.

Oh, I should also throw in that the voter ID law is to suppress the minority and youth votes so that they can't vote for Pres. Obama for a 2nd term.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,265
6,346
136
So then why would we need a picture with a driver's license now too? The police should trust me that I say I am who I am without need of a valid drivers license with photo.

....
If this question is serious, the answer is that driving is not a right, voting is. Want the privilege of driving? You have to get an ID. Like a previous poster just said, maybe we should require an ID in order to prove we have the right to free speech. :D
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,400
51
91
If this question is serious, the answer is that driving is not a right, voting is. Want the privilege of driving? You have to get an ID. Like a previous poster just said, maybe we should require an ID in order to prove we have the right to free speech. :D
Yes, not that serious of a question. Just trying to play devil's advocate.

Edit: To add to that, whatever happened to our society that we don't trust anyone any more? I initially thought it was good to verify ID for voting but it is certainly being rushed and not well thought out--the example of a Veteran's ID not counting is proof of that.

I hate that there are already too many laws in existence but certain ones need to be strengthened or enforced. If you are found of committing voter fraud, it should come with a stiff penalty. Why would someone risk a felony for an extra vote or two.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
We have to understand GOP reasoning here, if you can't easily produce a photo ID due to circumstances, you are automatically assumed guilty of voter fraud until proved innocent.

When our bill of American rights in our American Constitution asserted you are innocent until proven guilty. But now the GOP pretends to defend American principles.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,662
13,746
136
And I agree, a month before an election is not the time.

However, this has come up multiple times over the years.

If people want to get the information; they ahve the time to work out the issues.
most do not; expecting others to take care of them.

An illegal vote should not be tolerated when everyone has the ability to prove who they are and that they are legal.
Rather than questioning your integrity, I'm going to do something worse- I'm going to question your most cherished beliefs, which are apparently based on lies. You don't seem to be able or willing to recognize that.

1. Recognize that the State of Pennsylvania *will not* argue that the basis for new voting requirements has anything to do with alleged voter fraud. Accept the fact that the two issues are only linked in your well indoctrinated brain. Even though you believe that they are, they're not, and those trying to impose the new requirements admit to such.

2. Try to re-evaluate in that context.

3. Stop being judgmental about others as an excuse for what you believe about voting. Virtually all citizens have the right to vote, even the lazy, inattentive, poor, poorly educated or whatever. Any attempt to shape the electorate, to keep them from voting is an attempt to strengthen the hand of zealots, who'll walk across fire to vote. Voting isn't supposed to be an ordeal, nor is qualifying to vote, either. Saying that it should be denies the fundamental principles of egalitarian democracy & fair play in a truly shameful fashion. Don't blame the victim.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Rather than questioning your integrity, I'm going to do something worse- I'm going to question your most cherished beliefs, which are apparently based on lies. You don't seem to be able or willing to recognize that.

1. Recognize that the State of Pennsylvania *will not* argue that the basis for new voting requirements has anything to do with alleged voter fraud. Accept the fact that the two issues are only linked in your well indoctrinated brain. Even though you believe that they are, they're not, and those trying to impose the new requirements admit to such.

2. Try to re-evaluate in that context.

3. Stop being judgmental about others as an excuse for what you believe about voting. Virtually all citizens have the right to vote, even the lazy, inattentive, poor, poorly educated or whatever. Any attempt to shape the electorate, to keep them from voting is an attempt to strengthen the hand of zealots, who'll walk across fire to vote. Voting isn't supposed to be an ordeal, nor is qualifying to vote, either. Saying that it should be denies the fundamental principles of egalitarian democracy & fair play in a truly shameful fashion. Don't blame the victim.
Well said. Comments of the sort, "Well if they're too lazy to get IDs, they don't deserve to vote." reveal both a parochial, self-absorbed point of view -- "it's easy for me, so it's obviously just as easy for them" -- but also a very un-American attitude -- "Screw democracy, I want to limit the vote to people like me." I'm not thrilled that we allow woefully ignorant, disinformed people to vote ... but that's part of democracy.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,312
601
126
How do you prove that someone registered under false pretense as their neighbor (let's just say you know they are apathetic and weren't going to register and vote which can be substantiated by the 30-40% turnout) and then vote under their neighbor's name? how would you prove that if you didn't have to show ID when you show up to vote? they would be 'legally' registered, right?

I am not saying this has been done before in enough volume to affect the outcome of an election, but how would you prove/disprove this if they didn't ask for official ID when they cast their vote?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Nice argument, but notice you're trying to apply it only to one particular set of voters, as opposed to applying it equally to all (equal treatment under the law anyone?), and your argument includes onerous requirements. I find it hard to imagine getting an ID over the span of 4 years is onerous.

The point I'm making is that ANY burden faced by already-registered voters is clearly going to reduce the number registered voters allowed to vote. And that, in turn, is going to distort the vote far more greatly than the distortion caused by an acknowledged non-existent fraudulent votes.

Let me put this another way: Which is a greater distortion of the "will of the voters?"

1) 1000 votes NOT cast by would-be voters who are legitimate citizens, but who are not allowed to vote because they didn't follow the steps required to obtain an ID
2) 4 votes cast illegally
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
How do you prove that someone registered under false pretense as their neighbor (let's just say you know they are apathetic and weren't going to register and vote which can be substantiated by the 30-40% turnout) and then vote under their neighbor's name? how would you prove that if you didn't have to show ID when you show up to vote? they would be 'legally' registered, right?

I am not saying this has been done before in enough volume to affect the outcome of an election, but how would you prove/disprove this if they didn't ask for official ID when they cast their vote?
Voter B shows up to the polls, is rejected for having already voted, makes a stink, and laws on the books force the election officials there to report and investigate the incident. This gets recorded in the voting fraud stats, which shows this happens almost never. It's true that it's unrecorded if Voter B truly doesn't give a shit and doesn't vote, but that's hardly the biggest loss for democracy even if it's an illegal immigrant who really cares about the direction of the country voting vs. a lazy ass American who can't bother to try to vote. Assuming this could happen, it's statistical noise and will never make a serious difference as long as any substantial number of people DO show up and vote.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,818
136
Voter B shows up to the polls, is rejected for having already voted, makes a stink, and laws on the books force the election officials there to report and investigate the incident. This gets recorded in the voting fraud stats, which shows this happens almost never. It's true that it's unrecorded if Voter B truly doesn't give a shit and doesn't vote, but that's hardly the biggest loss for democracy even if it's an illegal immigrant who really cares about the direction of the country voting vs. a lazy ass American who can't bother to try to vote. Assuming this could happen, it's statistical noise and will never make a serious difference as long as any substantial number of people DO show up and vote.
Not only that, but were this to happen with any regularity the numerous electoral audits that were done would show a higher proportion of double votes. They don't.

The answer to why in person voter fraud is not a problem in America is simple math.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,312
601
126
Not only that, but were this to happen with any regularity the numerous electoral audits that were done would show a higher proportion of double votes. They don't.

The answer to why in person voter fraud is not a problem in America is simple math.
How would they show up as double votes? If I am Voter A, I register as Voter A and vote as Voter A. In speaking with my neighbor, he says knows his vote won't make difference so he isn't going to register to vote. So Voter A registers as Voter B (neighbor) and then votes again as Voter B. On the books, this would all appear as legit and would only be an issue if Voter B decides to vote. If Voter B never does (which based on the voter turnout, would not be a big surprise), no one would ever know.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,747
2,146
126
How would they show up as double votes? If I am Voter A, I register as Voter A and vote as Voter A. In speaking with my neighbor, he says knows his vote won't make difference so he isn't going to register to vote. So Voter A registers as Voter B (neighbor) and then votes again as Voter B. On the books, this would all appear as legit and would only be an issue if Voter B decides to vote. If Voter B never does (which based on the voter turnout, would not be a big surprise), no one would ever know.
And how do you propose to pull this off? You'll have to go to the same polling place as your neighbor. Surely someone there would recognize you the second time. Huge risk just to cast one extra vote? Right....
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,265
6,346
136
How would they show up as double votes? If I am Voter A, I register as Voter A and vote as Voter A. In speaking with my neighbor, he says knows his vote won't make difference so he isn't going to register to vote. So Voter A registers as Voter B (neighbor) and then votes again as Voter B. On the books, this would all appear as legit and would only be an issue if Voter B decides to vote. If Voter B never does (which based on the voter turnout, would not be a big surprise), no one would ever know.
So the theory is that illegal immigrants are going door to door to find out who isn't voting so they can register as them? If that isn't absurd enough, D and R both don't do anything against illegals for the most part so what is their motivation for voting illegally in the first place?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,818
136
How would they show up as double votes? If I am Voter A, I register as Voter A and vote as Voter A. In speaking with my neighbor, he says knows his vote won't make difference so he isn't going to register to vote. So Voter A registers as Voter B (neighbor) and then votes again as Voter B. On the books, this would all appear as legit and would only be an issue if Voter B decides to vote. If Voter B never does (which based on the voter turnout, would not be a big surprise), no one would ever know.
Voter turnout for presidential elections is actually fairly high (more than 50%). Your voter fraud plan now depends on each conspirator independently finding out the voting patters of his neighbor and choosing to make multiple trips to the polling station where the workers may recognize him in order to cast a single additional vote. A single vote is meaningless, and so the only way you get something like that plan to matter is if you coordinate hundreds of conspirators to also interrogate their neighbors as well.

If this is how people are trying to steal elections they are welcome to it. That is a voter fraud scheme so bad that it wouldn't pass muster for a Saturday morning cartoon.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Link
Pennsylvania judge denies challenge to state's voter ID law

(Reuters) - A judge in the election battleground state of Pennsylvania on Wednesday rejected an effort to block the state's voter identification law, which civil rights groups had argued discriminates against minority voters.

<snip>

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.
"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for counsel," Simpson wrote. "Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system."
"For the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to deny the application for preliminary injunction," Simpson concluded.

In otherwords - emotional arguments do not cut it. :thumbsup:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Link
Pennsylvania judge denies challenge to state's voter ID law

(Reuters) - A judge in the election battleground state of Pennsylvania on Wednesday rejected an effort to block the state's voter identification law, which civil rights groups had argued discriminates against minority voters.

<snip>

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.
"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for counsel," Simpson wrote. "Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system."
"For the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to deny the application for preliminary injunction," Simpson concluded.

In otherwords - emotional arguments do not cut it. :thumbsup:
Seems to me he is acknowledging that the objections are valid, that this law does disenfranchise voters, but that in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional. That may well be the case. The Indiana law was ruled constitutional because although SCOTUS recognized it did disenfranchise voters, it did not do so in a way or to an extent that justified federal interference with a state responsibility. SCOTUS also noted in the Indiana ruling that this was at least in part because Indiana took significant steps to mitigate disenfranchisement. If the PA law has similar provisions, it may be upheld as well.

Edit: Note that this has nothing to do with whether these laws are right or wrong. In both cases it appears the courts recognize that disenfranchisement is a real issue. It is just not unconstitutional in these cases. It's still a slimy attempt by the RNC to rig elections, but seemingly a legal slimy attempt.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,810
1,128
126
I never thought I'd see an American judge (of ANY political persuasion) tolerate disenfranchisement of voters based upon a fabricated pretense. Truely a sad day for American jurisprudence, as well as a sad day for American democracy.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Seems to me he is acknowledging that the objections are valid, that this law does disenfranchise voters, but that in and of itself does not make the law unconstitutional. That may well be the case. The Indiana law was ruled constitutional because although SCOTUS recognized it did disenfranchise voters, it did not do so in a way or to an extent that justified federal interference with a state responsibility. SCOTUS also noted in the Indiana ruling that this was at least in part because Indiana took significant steps to mitigate disenfranchisement. If the PA law has similar provisions, it may be upheld as well.

Edit: Note that this has nothing to do with whether these laws are right or wrong. In both cases it appears the courts recognize that disenfranchisement is a real issue. It is just not unconstitutional in these cases. It's still a slimy attempt by the RNC to rig elections, but seemingly a legal slimy attempt.
Say rather that disenfranchisement is a real issue, but ensuring honest elections is an even more important issue.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Say rather that disenfranchisement is a real issue, but ensuring honest elections is an even more important issue.
Please cite the portion of either ruling that agrees there is a material issue with in-person voter impersonation. Wishing the court said "xyz" does not mean the court actually said "xyz".
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Please cite the portion of either ruling that agrees there is a material issue with in-person voter impersonation. Wishing the court said "xyz" does not mean the court actually said "xyz".
Disenfranchisement is a emotional issue that can be solved. As long as the government does not institute policies to prevent a person from being able to meet the requirements.

Voter integrity is more of a constitutional issue. Does the person preparing to vote meet the requirements for voting.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Disenfranchisement is a emotional issue that can be solved. As long as the government does not institute policies to prevent a person from being able to meet the requirements.
That's a bit of a circular argument. "It's OK for government to institute policies that suppress voters as long as it does not institute policies to suppress voters." (paraphrased, of course). I would be OK with such ID laws if they required the government to actively assist legitimate voters who need IDs, including coming to their homes, tracking down and obtaining required documentation, and supplying the IDs, all at no cost to the voter. These laws don't do that. They leave people largely on their own to obtain such IDs. While that's a minor inconvenience for people like you and me, it can be a tremendous obstacle for many. The inevitable result is many of these people will not get that ID and will therefore become disenfranchised.


Voter integrity is more of a constitutional issue. Does the person preparing to vote meet the requirements for voting.
No, I don't think so. The constitutional requirements for voting are modest. It's all the state restrictions that are the issue.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
To be honest this is really irrelevant. Most people who take the time to vote are legal and have some type of ID. This may stop a few hundred people, but won't have any impact on wins that state.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
That's a bit of a circular argument. "It's OK for government to institute policies that suppress voters as long as it does not institute policies to suppress voters." (paraphrased, of course). I would be OK with such ID laws if they required the government to actively assist legitimate voters who need IDs, including coming to their homes, tracking down and obtaining required documentation, and supplying the IDs, all at no cost to the voter. These laws don't do that. They leave people largely on their own to obtain such IDs. While that's a minor inconvenience for people like you and me, it can be a tremendous obstacle for many. The inevitable result is many of these people will not get that ID and will therefore become disenfranchised.



No, I don't think so. The constitutional requirements for voting are modest. It's all the state restrictions that are the issue.
The state is stating that when you vote in person; prove who you are.
Where is that a problem?

If the state is preventing you from proving it; there is then a problem.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,711
10,778
136
The state is stating that when you vote in person; prove who you are.
Where is that a problem?

If the state is preventing you from proving it; there is then a problem.
Because if you vote absentee you don't have to prove it.

If the method of proving it is something everyone has (utility bill) it would be fine.

If you want to make a state issued ID the criteria it needs to be phased in not rushed just before an election.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY