Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[StrikeS2k]

Pennsylvania voter ID law should go forward, Commonwealth Court rulesWednesday, August 15, 2012By Laura Olson, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteHARRISBURG -- A Commonwealth Court judge has ruled in favor of the state's new law requiring photo identification at the polls, declaring that acquiring and presenting the ID cards is not an unconstitutional burden on voters.In his 70-page opinion, Judge Robert Simpson, who presided over a week-long hearing that sought to overturn the 5-month-old law, decided against granting an injunction that would have prevented the law from going into effect for the Nov. 6 general election.He wrote that opponents of the new law, who argued that too many voters currently lack and would not be able to acquire acceptable ID cards, "did not establish ... that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable."The judge added that he believed that several of the individuals presented as examples of those unable to travel to obtain a photo ID card would qualify for absentee voting. Those voting absentee must write their state ID card number or last four digits of their Social Security card on their ballot, or include a copy of another acceptable ID card.If they instead go to the polls without an ID card, they could vote using provisional ballot, he wrote, adding that any issues could be resolved afterward on a case-by-case basis."I am not convinced any of the individual petitioners or other witnesses will not have their votes counted in the general election," the judge wrote, later describing the statute as "merely an election regulation to verify a voter's identity."The decision regarding the controversial statute is expected to be promptly appealed to the state Supreme Court, in an effort to obtain a final ruling from the top court before the general election.That panel currently is evenly split between three Democrats and three Republicans, due to the suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin. A majority vote of four justices would be needed to halt the law's implementation.Judge Simpson noted the likelihood of that appeal in his decision, stating that stopping the law now -- and in turn, the educational efforts underway by state officials -- while an appeal is under review would cause "great injury" should the law again be upheld in the Supreme Court.The Republican-backed measure signed into law by Gov. Tom Corbett in March requires voters to show photo identification that includes an expiration date and that was issued by the state or federal government, a municipal employer, a Pennsylvania university or a nursing home.Voters who arrive at the polls without an acceptable ID can cast provisional ballots that will count if the voter verifies their identity within six days. Previously, identification was required the first time a voter visited a polling site, but could include a utility bill or other non-photo option.Since the law took effect, the Department of State has unveiled new paths for people to obtain an ID that meets the law's requirements, including creating a yet-to-be-issued card specifically for voting purposes. Agency officials also announced that drivers whose licenses expired in 1990 or later can get a new ID without showing a birth certificate or other identification.But several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said the photo-identification requirements would place too heavy a burden on those who currently lack adequate ID cards. They filed suit in May.Attorneys for the law's opponents argued last month that requiring photo identification could disenfranchise many Pennsylvania voters, particularly those who are poor, uneducated, Hispanic and female.They pointed to shifting estimates from the Department of State on how many voters likely do not have a state-issued ID card, and presented witnesses who testified about their difficulties attempting to obtain the documents necessary to apply for a Pennsylvania photo ID card.State officials defended the law, countering that the requirement to show photo identification applies equally to all voters. While some people may need to go through the effort of obtaining identification, that does not make the law unconstitutional, argued Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley during the hearing.The state's chapter of the ACLU was joined by the Advancement Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, and the Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter in the lawsuit.In a statement shortly after the decision was released, officials with the ACLU said they confirmed that they plan to appeal."Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold Walczak, legal director of the state's ACLU chapter.A separate legal challenge, filed by Democrats on the Allegheny County Board of Elections, still is pending in Commonwealth Court.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12228/1254241-178-0.stm

 

[Jackstraw]

Pennsylvania voter ID law should go forward, Commonwealth Court rulesWednesday, August 15, 2012By Laura Olson, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteHARRISBURG -- A Commonwealth Court judge has ruled in favor of the state's new law requiring photo identification at the polls, declaring that acquiring and presenting the ID cards is not an unconstitutional burden on voters.In his 70-page opinion, Judge Robert Simpson, who presided over a week-long hearing that sought to overturn the 5-month-old law, decided against granting an injunction that would have prevented the law from going into effect for the Nov. 6 general election.He wrote that opponents of the new law, who argued that too many voters currently lack and would not be able to acquire acceptable ID cards, "did not establish ... that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable."The judge added that he believed that several of the individuals presented as examples of those unable to travel to obtain a photo ID card would qualify for absentee voting. Those voting absentee must write their state ID card number or last four digits of their Social Security card on their ballot, or include a copy of another acceptable ID card.If they instead go to the polls without an ID card, they could vote using provisional ballot, he wrote, adding that any issues could be resolved afterward on a case-by-case basis."I am not convinced any of the individual petitioners or other witnesses will not have their votes counted in the general election," the judge wrote, later describing the statute as "merely an election regulation to verify a voter's identity."The decision regarding the controversial statute is expected to be promptly appealed to the state Supreme Court, in an effort to obtain a final ruling from the top court before the general election.That panel currently is evenly split between three Democrats and three Republicans, due to the suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin. A majority vote of four justices would be needed to halt the law's implementation.Judge Simpson noted the likelihood of that appeal in his decision, stating that stopping the law now -- and in turn, the educational efforts underway by state officials -- while an appeal is under review would cause "great injury" should the law again be upheld in the Supreme Court.The Republican-backed measure signed into law by Gov. Tom Corbett in March requires voters to show photo identification that includes an expiration date and that was issued by the state or federal government, a municipal employer, a Pennsylvania university or a nursing home.Voters who arrive at the polls without an acceptable ID can cast provisional ballots that will count if the voter verifies their identity within six days. Previously, identification was required the first time a voter visited a polling site, but could include a utility bill or other non-photo option.Since the law took effect, the Department of State has unveiled new paths for people to obtain an ID that meets the law's requirements, including creating a yet-to-be-issued card specifically for voting purposes. Agency officials also announced that drivers whose licenses expired in 1990 or later can get a new ID without showing a birth certificate or other identification.But several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said the photo-identification requirements would place too heavy a burden on those who currently lack adequate ID cards. They filed suit in May.Attorneys for the law's opponents argued last month that requiring photo identification could disenfranchise many Pennsylvania voters, particularly those who are poor, uneducated, Hispanic and female.They pointed to shifting estimates from the Department of State on how many voters likely do not have a state-issued ID card, and presented witnesses who testified about their difficulties attempting to obtain the documents necessary to apply for a Pennsylvania photo ID card.State officials defended the law, countering that the requirement to show photo identification applies equally to all voters. While some people may need to go through the effort of obtaining identification, that does not make the law unconstitutional, argued Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley during the hearing.The state's chapter of the ACLU was joined by the Advancement Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, and the Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter in the lawsuit.In a statement shortly after the decision was released, officials with the ACLU said they confirmed that they plan to appeal."Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold Walczak, legal director of the state's ACLU chapter.A separate legal challenge, filed by Democrats on the Allegheny County Board of Elections, still is pending in Commonwealth Court.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12228/1254241-178-0.stm

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud.

So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway.

It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

The judge added that he believed that several of the individuals presented as examples of those unable to travel to obtain a photo ID card would qualify for absentee voting. Those voting absentee must write their state ID card number or last four digits of their Social Security card on their ballot, or include a copy of another acceptable ID card.

If they instead go to the polls without an ID card, they could vote using provisional ballot, he wrote, adding that any issues could be resolved afterward on a case-by-case basis.

"I am not convinced any of the individual petitioners or other witnesses will not have their votes counted in the general election," the judge wrote, later describing the statute as "merely an election regulation to verify a voter's identity."

 

[RCon]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

 

[Rayderr]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz) — vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

 

[17seconds]

This whole thing actually reminds me of the pot legalization debate.

The arguments people make for legalization are: pot is medicinal! Pot can be used to make clothing! Pot is harmless!

But common sense says their real motivation is to be free to smoke and get high.

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!

But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

It's just too much of a coincidence that it's now such important issue AFTER Obama won in '08 due to a massive turnout of voters who are normally less likely to vote. Why wasn't this a big deal after the extremely close 2000 election? That was all about counting votes, not who actually voted.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

 

[RCon]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz) — vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

dictionary.com says:1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or rightClearly, no one is being denied the right to vote.

 

[RCon]

This whole thing actually reminds me of the pot legalization debate.The arguments people make for legalization are: pot is medicinal! Pot can be used to make clothing! Pot is harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to be free to smoke and get high.The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.It's just too much of a coincidence that it's now such important issue AFTER Obama won in '08 due to a massive turnout of voters who are normally less likely to vote. Why wasn't this a big deal after the extremely close 2000 election? That was all about counting votes, not who actually voted.

In both cases, does the motivation particularly matter if all the arguments are correct?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz) — vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

dictionary.com says:1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or rightClearly, no one is being denied the right to vote.

Seeing as we are unfamiliar with sarcasm, I will close the register at this point.

 

[pantagrapher]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz) — vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

dictionary.com says:1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or rightClearly, no one is being denied the right to vote.

Say someone doesn't have their birth certificate but one is required to get an ID. And say the fee for a birth certificate is $35. If that person does not have the $35, they are being denied the right to vote. This was an example cited in the Texas voter ID debate, IIRC.

 

[17seconds]

This whole thing actually reminds me of the pot legalization debate.The arguments people make for legalization are: pot is medicinal! Pot can be used to make clothing! Pot is harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to be free to smoke and get high.The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.It's just too much of a coincidence that it's now such important issue AFTER Obama won in '08 due to a massive turnout of voters who are normally less likely to vote. Why wasn't this a big deal after the extremely close 2000 election? That was all about counting votes, not who actually voted.

In both cases, does the motivation particularly matter if all the arguments are correct?

Yes. The motivations are the real reason because that's where the biggest effect occurs. In both cases the arguments mentioned are largely irrelevant, even if they are true.If pot was legal, way more people would be smoking freely than opening up new businesses to sell hemp products or using it as medicine. If voter ID was everywhere, far more people would not vote because of it than be prevented from committing fraud.

 

[pantagrapher]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

Most places require people be given time off to vote. And if they don't, polls are open for more than 8 hours per day. And I've made this point before in this thread, but while having all your supporting documents in order and taking a day off to go to the DMV is no big deal for the average FBG, it means a day of lost wages for people barely scraping by.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Crazy. The state even stipulated they couldn't demonstrate a single voter impersonation fraud. So we can't demonstrate a problem but we're going to disenfranchise 750,000 people anyway. It's so ridiculous on its face I can't even believe we're having a discussion about this. What a F'ed up country we're living in.

Your definition of disenfranchise seems to be faulty.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz) — vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

dictionary.com says:1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or rightClearly, no one is being denied the right to vote.

Say someone doesn't have their birth certificate but one is required to get an ID. And say the fee for a birth certificate is $35. If that person does not have the $35, they are being denied the right to vote. This was an example cited in the Texas voter ID debate, IIRC.

I guess the joke definition was correct after all.

disenfranchise or disfranchise (ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz)— vb1. to require (a person) to make a minimal effort to vote

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

Most places require people be given time off to vote. And if they don't, polls are open for more than 8 hours per day. And I've made this point before in this thread, but while having all your supporting documents in order and taking a day off to go to the DMV is no big deal for the average FBG, it means a day of lost wages for people barely scraping by.

And yet the overwhelming majority of those people currently have IDs. It's really a testament to the human spirt that they were able to overcome such daunting obstacles. But yeah, we've done this a bunch of times before.

 

[17seconds]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

Why does it matter? I don't equate voting with other things that require preparation like registering for school, getting a passport, doing taxes. It's a basic right. A homeless guy with no documentation or ID has the same vote I do. The barriers should be absolutely minimal.Individual voter fraud is no threat to a major election. If fraud of any significance is going to happen it will be within the system after votes have been received, where you can affect thousands of votes or more.

 

[pantagrapher]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

Most places require people be given time off to vote. And if they don't, polls are open for more than 8 hours per day. And I've made this point before in this thread, but while having all your supporting documents in order and taking a day off to go to the DMV is no big deal for the average FBG, it means a day of lost wages for people barely scraping by.

And yet the overwhelming majority of those people currently have IDs. It's really a testament to the human spirt that they were able to overcome such daunting obstacles. But yeah, we've done this a bunch of times before.

An overwhelming majority of people just scraping by have a current photo ID? I'm not sure that's true. Of course, we have a couple vague terms in there that make a determination pretty much impossible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The arguments people make for voter ID are: make voting more accurate! why not have an ID, it's harmless!

But common sense says their real motivation is to suppress the poor and minority vote.

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense." It takes a lot of imagination to come up with stories where people are able to show up at a polling place on a particular day but are somehow unable to acquire IDs at their convenience.

Why does it matter? I don't equate voting with other things that require preparation like registering for school, getting a passport, doing taxes. It's a basic right. A homeless guy with no documentation or ID has the same vote I do. The barriers should be absolutely minimal.

This thread is basically 25+ pages of people arguing about whether ID requirements are "absolutely minimal."

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense."

"Common sense" often sucks as a guide for smart public policy.Lots of people also think that drug prohibition typifies "common sense." Drugs screw up people's lives. People that don't give it a lot of thought think it is helpful to ban them. It's only when you give the issue further consideration that you realize that the common sense reaction is dumb.There are plenty of examples where your views are inconsistent with what many people consider to be "common sense."

 

[Topes]

On Wednesday night’s “Special Report” during the weekly online segment, Fox News contributor and Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers said her party — the Democratic Party —is “trapped in the past” in their opposition to voter ID laws.

“This is one of those arguments that I feel Democrats are sort of trapped in the past … At one point, I think this was true in extremely rural places or, you know, with people who were, you know, couldn’t read or couldn’t write — you know, in a different time,” she said. “Or when African-Americans were very afraid of the government — things like that.”

Since many state governments have been taken over by the Republican Party after the 2010 elections, throughout the country there has been a push to enact voter identification law. The measures have been opposed by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice for the most part and have been played up as a potential 2012 election campaign issue.

Powers suggested that the Democratic Party explore ways to make sure everyone had an ID so they could vote, instead of opposing voter ID laws outright.

“Now today I’m just not on board with this,” Powers said. “I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect somebody to get an ID. And if they don’t have the money or the means to do it, the Democrats can start an organization that does that — that helps them go and raises the money to pay for them to get the ID, which is not that much money, and gives them the forms and tells them how to do it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/kirsten-powers-democrats-are-sort-of-trapped-in-the-past-on-voter-id-opposition-video/#ixzz1sSKrAEnf

Please highlight the comedy I'm missing

Makes sense. Conservatives have got that covered. Again I'm going to say that conservatives are actively engaged in suppressing the vote and everybody here knows it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/u-s-judge-hears-registration-groups-case-against-2210864.html

The law, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott, shrinks from 10 days to 48 hours the time that such organizations have to file completed voter registration applications with the state. It also establishes a schedule of fines for violations - as high as $1,000.

In addition, it requires that each organization sign an affidavit acknowledging the rules and penalties but also that each volunteer sign such an affidavit, acknowledging possible personal liability.

Republican legislators say the law will reduce voter fraud.

"This is frankly not a serious law," Lee Rowland, an attorney representing the organizations, told U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle.

Rowland called the law "a cumulative and unworkable mess" foisted upon the Florida Division of Elections.

Hinkle listened to the groups' presentation, inserting an occasional question. But the judge was more aggressive with lawyers for the state, making them address a list of hypothetical situations in which citizens volunteering for voter registration groups could end up violating the law, even though they have no criminal intent.

He also repeatedly pushed the lawyers to identify the state's interest in tightening the rules.

Representing the state, Blaine Winship of the Florida Attorney General's Office argued that the law ensures that groups entrusted with important documents take care of them.

"The purpose of this is to make sure that people actually get registered," Winship said.

"I really don't need the state to help me" with that, Hinkle responded.

Hinkle focused in part on a provision requiring any voter registration forms returned by mail to either arrive within the 48-hour window or be clearly postmarked within that time. Hinkle noted that the mail sometimes takes more than two days to arrive and that postmarks are often unclear.

"How would any prudent organization ever mail in a form that it collected at a voter registration drive under this statute?" he asked.

In their complaint, the organizations, which say they have never been charged with voter fraud, claim they have been forced to severely curtail - or, in the case of the League of Women Voters, stop - registration of voters in Florida. The time frames in the law may not always be met, the organizations contend, and they and their volunteers could not afford to pay the penalties.

Federal Judge Will Permanently Remove Florida Voter Registration Restrictions

 

[Rayderr]

S.C. lawmaker admits positive response to racist email on voter ID bill

By Rebecca Cohen | McClatchy Newspapers

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Poorly considered response, indeed.

I've noticed that if you don't get a response after an hour or 2, you delete the post and then repost it. Why do you do that?

 

[DrJ]

Poorly considered response?

 

[djmich]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

 

[Glass Joe]

Is this a problem needing attention?

The political machine plays you all for fools, getting you to look elsewhere instead of addressing real problems.

 

[Topes]

No ID? No Problem! Just ask Jim Cramer for help!

 

[Guest]

No ID? No Problem! Just ask Jim Cramer for help!

I thought this was the most interesting part of that article.

McKnight said the agency recently began offering a “safety net” form of photo identification, which is given to voters lack a birth certificate but have a Social Security number. The agency issued 472 of those IDs from the first day they were available on Aug. 27 through Sept. 7. PennDOT’s Philadelphia branch alone issued 286 of them.

So there was 472 people who want to vote, are motivated to vote, are willing to do something to vote, but would have been prevented from voting for a lack of a birth certificate. And that's just over 10 days.

 

[RCon]

No ID? No Problem! Just ask Jim Cramer for help!

I thought this was the most interesting part of that article.

McKnight said the agency recently began offering a “safety net” form of photo identification, which is given to voters lack a birth certificate but have a Social Security number. The agency issued 472 of those IDs from the first day they were available on Aug. 27 through Sept. 7. PennDOT’s Philadelphia branch alone issued 286 of them.

So there was 472 people who want to vote, are motivated to vote, are willing to do something to vote, but would have been prevented from voting for a lack of a birth certificate. And that's just over 10 days.

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

 

[Guest]

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

The state made an exception to the law which they had already passed. These people didn't have photo IDs and didn't have the requisite birth certificate they needed to get a photo ID. For some reason that isn't made explicit in the article, the state decided to loosen their standards and allow people who had a Social Security # but no birth certificate get an ID.It just goes to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that there really are people out there who want to vote who will be struck off the rolls if these laws are carried out. It's not always an issue of getting to the DMV to get a photo ID. It can be having (or rather, not having) the supporting identification you need to get a photo ID.

 

[jonessed]

Many of us think that ID requirements pretty much typify "common sense."

"Common sense" often sucks as a guide for smart public policy.Lots of people also think that drug prohibition typifies "common sense." Drugs screw up people's lives. People that don't give it a lot of thought think it is helpful to ban them. It's only when you give the issue further consideration that you realize that the common sense reaction is dumb.

There are plenty of examples where your views are inconsistent with what many people consider to be "common sense."

 

[parasaurolophus]

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

The state made an exception to the law which they had already passed. These people didn't have photo IDs and didn't have the requisite birth certificate they needed to get a photo ID. For some reason that isn't made explicit in the article, the state decided to loosen their standards and allow people who had a Social Security # but no birth certificate get an ID.It just goes to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that there really are people out there who want to vote who will be struck off the rolls if these laws are carried out. It's not always an issue of getting to the DMV to get a photo ID. It can be having (or rather, not having) the supporting identification you need to get a photo ID.

Sounds like the state took care of it and they didnt have to.Thought this was just about suppressing votes?

 

[The Commish]

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

The state made an exception to the law which they had already passed. These people didn't have photo IDs and didn't have the requisite birth certificate they needed to get a photo ID. For some reason that isn't made explicit in the article, the state decided to loosen their standards and allow people who had a Social Security # but no birth certificate get an ID.It just goes to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that there really are people out there who want to vote who will be struck off the rolls if these laws are carried out. It's not always an issue of getting to the DMV to get a photo ID. It can be having (or rather, not having) the supporting identification you need to get a photo ID.

Not sure I follow how THIS situation where the state didn't strike anyone from anything rather figured a way to get them a vote demonstrates that people will be struck off the rolls

 

[Guest]

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

The state made an exception to the law which they had already passed. These people didn't have photo IDs and didn't have the requisite birth certificate they needed to get a photo ID. For some reason that isn't made explicit in the article, the state decided to loosen their standards and allow people who had a Social Security # but no birth certificate get an ID.It just goes to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that there really are people out there who want to vote who will be struck off the rolls if these laws are carried out. It's not always an issue of getting to the DMV to get a photo ID. It can be having (or rather, not having) the supporting identification you need to get a photo ID.

Not sure I follow how THIS situation where the state didn't strike anyone from anything rather figured a way to get them a vote demonstrates that people will be struck off the rolls

These people all could have voted just fine in the last election. Then Pennsylvania passed a law restricting voting to those with a photo ID. Numerous conservatives have said here, for months, that this isn't a big deal because if someone just has to go down to the local DMV and how lazy are these people and do we really want them voting if they can't be bothered. And who are these imaginary people who don't have photo IDs. Don't they know they can't work, buy alcohol, or get into an R-rated movie without one?For reason unknown, maybe they felt public pressure, maybe they're trying to give a better litigation posture since Pennsylvania is still fighting the constitutionality of this law in court, maybe they didn't like the publicity, but for whatever reason, Pennsylvania relaxed the documentation requirements to get a photo ID contrary to the law which they just passed. Once they did, and within about 10 days, 400-some people went and got a "safety net" form of photo ID. But Pennsylvania didn't have to do this under their law. And not all of the states which have similar laws will give a similar exception.

So what does this prove?

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID.

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID who want to vote.

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID who want to vote who are willing to go to the DMV.

* That there are, actually, people who couldn't otherwise get a photo ID because of the documentation requirements to get a photo ID.

In court, when defending the voter ID law, the state could offer no instances of voter identity fraud in the state's history. There just has been 472 instances in 10 days of people who would lose their vote with the voter ID law as it is written.

 

[The Commish]

Seems like they aren't prevented from voting at all. Seems like they are being given photo IDs?

The state made an exception to the law which they had already passed. These people didn't have photo IDs and didn't have the requisite birth certificate they needed to get a photo ID. For some reason that isn't made explicit in the article, the state decided to loosen their standards and allow people who had a Social Security # but no birth certificate get an ID.It just goes to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that there really are people out there who want to vote who will be struck off the rolls if these laws are carried out. It's not always an issue of getting to the DMV to get a photo ID. It can be having (or rather, not having) the supporting identification you need to get a photo ID.

Not sure I follow how THIS situation where the state didn't strike anyone from anything rather figured a way to get them a vote demonstrates that people will be struck off the rolls

These people all could have voted just fine in the last election. Then Pennsylvania passed a law restricting voting to those with a photo ID. Numerous conservatives have said here, for months, that this isn't a big deal because if someone just has to go down to the local DMV and how lazy are these people and do we really want them voting if they can't be bothered. And who are these imaginary people who don't have photo IDs. Don't they know they can't work, buy alcohol, or get into an R-rated movie without one?For reason unknown, maybe they felt public pressure, maybe they're trying to give a better litigation posture since Pennsylvania is still fighting the constitutionality of this law in court, maybe they didn't like the publicity, but for whatever reason, Pennsylvania relaxed the documentation requirements to get a photo ID contrary to the law which they just passed. Once they did, and within about 10 days, 400-some people went and got a "safety net" form of photo ID. But Pennsylvania didn't have to do this under their law. And not all of the states which have similar laws will give a similar exception.

So what does this prove?

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID.

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID who want to vote.

* That there are, actually, people who don't have a photo ID who want to vote who are willing to go to the DMV.

* That there are, actually, people who couldn't otherwise get a photo ID because of the documentation requirements to get a photo ID.

In court, when defending the voter ID law, the state could offer no instances of voter identity fraud in the state's history. There just has been 472 instances in 10 days of people who would lose their vote with the voter ID law as it is written.

Did you hurt yourself coming up with this? No offense, but none of your bullets had to be "proven" and if we're being honest the third bullet flies in the face of a lot of the "this makes it hard for them to get the ID and they won't want to do that to vote" argument in this very thread doesn't it? Your last bullet is probably not going to work for those who believe we should know who the people are voting. It's a bit hyperbolic in that the birth certificate is probably the easiest thing to obtain aside from a SS card in this whole process. And again, I challenge your last sentence. They made exceptions because it was necessary, so as long as that's in place, I fail to see the issue or why you even bring that up. You need to be looking at the law and it's exceptions as a whole to remain accurate.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Sarah Silverman has made an anti-voter ID video:

 

[Rayderr]

Sarah Silverman has made an anti-voter ID video:

Well if Sarah's against it, then I totally change my mind.

 

[Topes]

 

[DrJ]

That show sure has gone downhill...

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sarah Silverman has made an anti-voter ID video:

 

[NajehHejan]

Pennsylvania Judge Blocks Voter ID Law until December

Understanding the Pennsylvania Voter ID ruling

By Scott Bomboy

CONSTITUTION DAILY

Bomboy is editor-in-chief of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Constitution Center.

A Pennsylvania commonwealth judge issued a partial injunction on Tuesday that will likely block voter ID laws from the state’s November election.

A Pennsylvania commonwealth judge issued a partial injunction on Tuesday that will likely block voter ID laws from the state’s November election. But the issue is far from over.To be sure, the state’s Voter ID law isn’t dead, and a higher court could overturn the ruling. And there was no ruling on the constitutionality of the law. Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. faced a Tuesday deadline from the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court to decide if he found any possible disenfranchisement cases related to the application of the law.Simpson issued what amounts to a temporary, partial injunction that remains in effect until December.Bottom line: For now, voters in Pennsylvania without valid photo ID cards don’t have to apply for free ID cards from the state. When they go to the polls in November, they will still be asked for a photo ID card. If they don’t have one, they can vote using a paper provisional ballot. Judge Simpson also has waived a requirement that provisional voters provide an approved ID within six days after the election’s end. So that provisional ballot filled out at the polling place counts.Confused?The judge said that his injunction was only for part of the new Voter ID law about the provisional ballots and the injunction has a shelf life for just the November election.And the state can keep on educating voters about the Voter ID program, since the program’s ultimate fate hasn’t been settled. Judge Simpson also said the state exceeded expectations with its efforts to educate voters in its outreach programs.“These existing structural improvements, together with the proposed enhanced access to the DOS ID and additional time, will place the Commonwealth in a better position going forward,” he said.Simpson said that it was the factor of the election’s timing in five weeks’ time that led to the partial, preliminary injunction.“Consequently, I am not still convinced in my 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 forthcoming election. Under these circumstances, I am obliged to enter a preliminary injunction,” he said.The state could still appeal the ruling to its own Supreme Court.But that court had returned the case to Simpson on September 19, asking him to issue an injunction if he thought any eligible voter wouldn’t be able to cast a vote, because of the state’s requirements to obtain a free voter ID before the November election.The state Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-2 vote, that Simpson should issue an injunction, if voter access was inhibited because of “the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter-identification requirement for purposes of the forthcoming election.”Since then, the administration of Governor Tom Corbett relaxed some of the voter ID requirements.Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has six voting justices (a seventh judge is suspended) who are divided on party lines. So even if the current case is heard on appeal, a decision isn’t likely to affect Judge Simpson’s ruling, unless two justices change their opinions from the September 19 ruling.The next step for Simpson’s court is a meeting on December 13th to discuss the case for a permanent injunction. So for now, the Pennsylvania voter ID law is on hold until after the November election.A Pennsylvania commonwealth judge issued a partial injunction on Tuesday that will likely block voter ID laws from the state’s November election.

But the issue is far from over.

To be sure, the state’s Voter ID law isn’t dead, and a higher court could overturn the ruling. And there was no ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. faced a Tuesday deadline from the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court to decide if he found any possible disenfranchisement cases related to the application of the law.

Simpson issued what amounts to a temporary, partial injunction that remains in effect until December.

Bottom line: For now, voters in Pennsylvania without valid photo ID cards don’t have to apply for free ID cards from the state. When they go to the polls in November, they will still be asked for a photo ID card. If they don’t have one, they can still vote.

Confused?

The judge said that his injunction was only for part of the new Voter ID law about the provisional ballots and the injunction has a shelf life for just the November election.

And the state can keep on educating voters about the Voter ID program, since the program’s ultimate fate hasn’t been settled. Judge Simpson also said the state exceeded expectations with its efforts to educate voters in its outreach programs.

“These existing structural improvements, together with the proposed enhanced access to the DOS ID and additional time, will place the Commonwealth in a better position going forward,” he said.

Simpson said that it was the factor of the election’s timing in five weeks’ time that led to the partial, preliminary injunction.

“Consequently, I am not still convinced in my 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 forthcoming election. Under these circumstances, I am obliged to enter a preliminary injunction,” he said.

The state could still appeal the ruling to its own Supreme Court.

But that court had returned the case to Simpson on September 19, asking him to issue an injunction if he thought any eligible voter wouldn’t be able to cast a vote, because of the state’s requirements to obtain a free voter ID before the November election.

The state Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-2 vote, that Simpson should issue an injunction, if voter access was inhibited because of “the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter-identification requirement for purposes of the forthcoming election.”

Since then, the administration of Governor Tom Corbett relaxed some of the voter ID requirements.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has six voting justices (a seventh judge is suspended) who are divided on party lines. So even if the current case is heard on appeal, a decision isn’t likely to affect Judge Simpson’s ruling, unless two justices change their opinions from the September 19 ruling.

The next step for Simpson’s court is a meeting on December 13th to discuss the case for a permanent injunction. So for now, the Pennsylvania voter ID law is on hold until after the November election.

 

[The Commish]

QUESTION: If citizens of a state were all on the same page regarding this issue, only they were FOR the IDs. Could it be considered "disenfranchisement" if their government decided NOT to have a voter ID law?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ex-judge throws out seven ballots in VernonFive voters in the City Council election weren't residents of the city and two others did not properly submit ballots. If approved, Luz Martinez would be the winner.By Sam Allen, Los Angeles TimesOctober 15, 2012, 7:04 p.m.A hearing officer Monday concluded that voter fraud occurred in Vernon's June City Council election, throwing out seven of the 64 ballots cast in the race and declaring a new winner.The decision by former Superior Court Judge Debra Wong Yang came after an unusual, quasi-judicial proceeding last month at City Hall in which dozens of voters were called to testify about their commuting patterns, financial histories and even Facebook pages. Yang ruled that five of the voters in question were not residents of the city. Two others, she said, did not properly submit their ballots.Yang's ruling, if approved by the City Council, would tilt the race in favor of candidate Luz Martinez, who had trailed 34 votes to 30.It would also reverse the decision made by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, which dismissed the voter challenges this summer and called the race for Martinez's opponent, Reno Bellamy. Vernon responded by creating the hearing process and hiring Yang at a rate of $990 an hour.The council races in Vernon this year were viewed as important milestones for the ongoing reform effort within the city government, which was nearly disincorporated last summer by the state Legislature after a series of corruption scandals. The city is home to about 1,800 businesses but just 112 residents, and critics have long argued that it functioned as a fiefdom for its leaders rather than a legitimate democracy.Both the June contest and a previous race in April were thrown into chaos by allegations of voter fraud. The Vernon Chamber of Commerce, which supported Martinez, hired private investigators to figure out who really lived in the city and mounted a series of legal challenges.Fredric Woocher, the lawyer representing the chamber, called the decision Monday a vindication, saying it showed that democracy could work in Vernon despite its tiny pool of voters."The chamber felt the election had been stolen, and they went out there to prove it," Woocher said. "This will go a long way to making sure elections in Vernon are conducted fairly in the future."In several instances, Yang wrote, there was "clear and convincing evidence" that voters did not live in Vernon. Bernard Roberts, for example, openly admitted during his testimony that he resided in Arizona. "I just visit [Vernon]; I don't live here. I visit all over the country, if I get the chance," the 90-year old Roberts said.But Yang also sided against the chamber in two cases where voters claimed multiple residences, including Roberts' son, Dennis, who said he moved to Arizona to take care of his father but always planned to return to Vernon.Leaders at the chamber have alleged that the Roberts family was part of a broader conspiracy to stack the voter rolls organized by former city officials. In his testimony, Dennis Roberts acknowledged a relationship with Curtis Fresch, a former renewable energy consultant to the city who was paid more than $300,000 in 2010."It's pretty clear now that these weren't just isolated instances," Woocher said.Martinez, a former secretary in Vernon's Fire Department, was celebrating her victory Monday, more than six months after she first started to campaign."Today is a joyous day in Vernon," she said in a statement. "I am eager to work with members on the city council on issues that promote further reform in Vernon."Bellamy, meanwhile, called the hearing proceedings "bogus" and said he was considering further legal action. He pointed out that the city created the rules for the judicial proceedings only after the registrar named him the winner, and that it was paying Yang nearly $1,000 an hour for her work."The city government itself ran this show," Bellamy said. "When it comes to an election, they shouldn't be playing that part. They shouldn't have any say in who wins — that's more corrupt than the old Chicago mob."sam.allen@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vernon-ruling-20121016,0,4026454.storyThis has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The best part of this is it took you nearly 1100 posts to unearth any actual voter fraud.

 

[The Commish]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

So your biggest concern is that 5 votes voting in a way that would not have been stopped by requiring Voter ID would swing an election for city council elections in a town nobody has ever heard of?

I think his point is that voter fraud can affect local elections very easily. Because you don't care about his precinct doesn't change that.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

So your biggest concern is that 5 votes voting in a way that would not have been stopped by requiring Voter ID would swing an election for city council elections in a town nobody has ever heard of?

ID's typically have an address on them.

 

[Rayderr]

Now even saying what the penalty is for voter fraud is "voter intimidation."

Link

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Community members spoke out Monday after they said billboards targeting voter fraud were aimed at preventing people from voting.

The billboards state correctly that voter fraud is a felony punishable by up to three and a half years and a $10,000 fine.

Not only is the statement correct, but it is legal, covered by the right to free speech. However, some believe there is more to the billboards than meets the eye.

“This is intimidation, it’s fear tactics,” Rev. Dale Snyder of Bethel AME Church said.

Clear Channel Outdoor, the company that owns the space, said that there are 30 voter fraud billboards in the Columbus area.

Snyder said that billboards are meant to keep people from getting to the polls. Ohio State professor Dan Tokaji agreed.

“It’s very clear to me that the goal here is to discourage people, probably especially people in minority communities, from coming out to vote,” Tokaji said.

Tokaji said that the tactic it is nothing new, especially in a state as critical to the presidential outcome as Ohio. He pointed to the low instance of actual voter fraud: According to the Franklin County Board of Elections, out of more than 9 million primary and general election ballots cast in Franklin County since 2006, there are just two confirmed cases of voter fraud.

Clear Channel told 10TV its policy is to require advertisers to include a disclaimer on their billboards identifying who paid for it. However, these billboards say, “Paid for by a private family foundation.” Clear Channel said that in this case, the company failed to follow its own policy, calling it a mistake that at this point cannot be fixed.

“I served in the military. I put my life on the line to protect democracy and this does not protect democracy,” Dale said. “It's intimidating and it's taking us backwards."

Tokaji said that the best response to this is accurate information.

“In Ohio, the truth is, that you're eligible to vote even if you have a felony on your record so long as you're not currently incarcerated. And you don't need a government issued photo I.D.,” Tokaji said. “The strongest response to the people who are outraged by these tactics is to go out there and vote on Nov. 6."

The billboards are also up in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Community leaders in those communities said they were concentrated in predominantly minority neighborhoods. Clear Channel denied the claims, but would only provide 10TV four of 30 locations of their billboards in Columbus.

10TV asked Clear Channel for the full list of locations, but they did not respond.

 

[Mello]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?I just find this whole debate crazy and shows that most sides really don't care about any kind of ideal. They just want what helps their side better. In any sane world, conservatives and liberals would be on opposite sides of this debate.

 

[The Commish]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?I just find this whole debate a crazy world that shows that most sides really don't care about any kind of ideal. They just want what helps their side better. In any sane world, conservatives and liberals would be on opposite sides of this debate.

What is the ideal though? Wouldn't it be ideal to have a process where we don't have to worry about the validity of the voter coming in the door to vote? What folks seem to want to ignore is the fact that you can do identification of voters in a way that is NOT a burden to them.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?

There's a reasonableness factor. As long as the requirements meet common sense reasonableness standards I have no problem with them. Some people feel that ANY requirements to prove who you are to vote are nonsensical. Those people and I will never agree on this issue.

 

[pantagrapher]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?

There's a reasonableness factor. As long as the requirements meet common sense reasonableness standards I have no problem with them. Some people feel that ANY requirements to prove who you are to vote are nonsensical. Those people and I will never agree on this issue.

The problem here is that what a bunch of people with regular internet access and plenty of free time think is "reasonable" is probably way different than what a poor or disabled or elderly person thinks is reasonable.

 

[Mello]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?I just find this whole debate a crazy world that shows that most sides really don't care about any kind of ideal. They just want what helps their side better. In any sane world, conservatives and liberals would be on opposite sides of this debate.

What is the ideal though? Wouldn't it be ideal to have a process where we don't have to worry about the validity of the voter coming in the door to vote? What folks seem to want to ignore is the fact that you can do identification of voters in a way that is NOT a burden to them.

The more I think about it, the more it's a dumb point. I can think of many other issues I see each side being hypocritical as well.As far as the ideal, at one time I naively thought that it was obviously to ensure every person that wants to vote and is eligible can and that it would be better for 100s of fraudulent votes to be counted rather than one person be denied their rights. That was obviously a joke. Past that, overall one would think conservatives would be more about limited government and individual responsibility. Yet here they want more government regulation of individuals. The converse is true of liberals.Edit: Also, what's the idea that wouldn't burden people? If that was really true and it didn't cost a lot more money I would be for it. I can think of some ideas that would impose burdens that many might consider acceptable, but nothing that truly places no additional burden on people.