Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Judge Blocks Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 2, 2012, 12:10 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5854)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/02/14182503-judge-blocks-pennsylvania-voter-id-law?lite

By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer

Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET -- A Pennsylvania judge has blocked enforcement of the key section of a voter identification law which the state legislature enacted and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed last March, meaning that the law will not be in effect for the Nov. 6 election.

Judge Robert Simpson said that even with the streamlined procedures that state officials proposed to make it easier for voters without ID cards to obtain them, “the proposed changes are to occur about five weeks before the general election, and I question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the goal of liberal access” to ID cards.

He said, “I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time. For this reason, I accept Petitioners’ argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.”

Those challenging the law included the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters and other groups.

Simpson ruled that those voters who cast provisional ballots will not be required to return to their county election board within six days of the election to show proof of identification.

Simpson’s ruling means that the photo ID requirement won’t be in effect for the Nov. 6 election, but it may be in effect for future elections. His decision did not strike down the entire law; in fact he rejected efforts by those challenging to law to stop state officials from educating voters about the voter ID requirement.

Simpson also said that those challenging the law have conceded that the part of the law which requires proof of identification for absentee voting does not harm would-be voters and may be implemented.

According to a recent Franklin & Marshall poll, nearly three out of five registered Pennsylvania voters favor the photo identification requirement.

Although some Republicans had hopes this summer of making Pennsylvania competitive in the presidential race, recent polling shows GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney between 7 and 12 percentage points behind President Barack Obama in the state.

Pennsylvania also has a Senate race this year but Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. is 12 points ahead of Republican challenger Tom Smithaccording to that Franklin & Marshall poll.

State Republican Party chairman Rob Gleason said in August that no matter what the courts ruled, voters in the state think they need a form of identification so the law will have an effect. Gleason said, “Enough has been said; everybody’s heard about it. No matter what they (the courts) decide now, people think you’ve got to have it.”

Even in the wake of Simpson’s injunction, opponents of the law still contend that it is deeply flawed.

“While we’re happy that voters in Pennsylvania will not be turned away if they do not have an ID, we are concerned that the ruling will allow election workers to ask for ID at the polls and this could cause confusion,” said Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, an advocacy group opposed to the law. “This injunction serves as a mere Band-Aid for law’s inherent problems, not an effective remedy.”

An initial assessment by Pennsylvania Secretary of State Carol Aichele’s office found that 91 percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters have Pennsylvania Department of Transportation issued licenses which are acceptable ID for voting.

It also reported that names of nearly 760,000 voters couldn’t be matched between the state’s voter list and the driver’s license database. But some of those non-matching names were merely name mismatches of the same person between one database and another.

The law also says other forms of ID are acceptable, such as military ID cards, U.S. passports, identification cards from accredited Pennsylvania colleges or universities or state senior care facilities, or other photo identification cards issued by the federal, Pennsylvania, county or municipal governments.

26 Comments

26 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

now Turzai just needs to go to jail for fraud

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

great news!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

National Republican Voter Registration Strategy Includes Lying to Potential Voters About "Taking a Poll" in Order to Screen Out Obama Supporters

Wednesday, 03 October 2012 10:45 By Brad Friedman, The Brad Blog | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11904-national-republican-voter-registration-strategy-includes-lying-to-potential-voters-about-taking-a-poll-in-order-to-screen-out-obama-supporters

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The real question is, how much damage has been done to our democracy by these blatant abuses of the "right" wing?

All who partook, should be prosecuted.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

when will both wings stop abusing third party candidates?

their actions are such blatant abuses against democracy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I for one, have advocated for more of their voices to be heard on the same stages as the two major parties.

Please note, that I said the "same stages". That's important.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They will not stop until the people demand better. Its not looking good.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

on the other hand, their actions could be viewed as a snake writhing after being run over by a car called democracy.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

prosecution would be nice -
but you cannot prosecute evil - or stupidity
here is THE QUESTION for OWS -


forget the 1% - they are the greedy crooks and always will be

What can OWS do to convince the 1%'s supporters
that they MUST vote for their own intrests.

HINT:
marching in the streets with confrontation is not the answer
remember the 1968 Democratic convention ?
we scared enough people to give us

crook nixon ▬►pardoner ford
pardoner ford ▬►iran contra reagan
ran contra reagan ▬►iran contra bush
ran contra bush ▬►wmd bush

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hush now.

You know there are many here who refuse to accept the truth in that.

The reality in how that worked.

Besides, Nixon wasn't a crook.........snicker...................He said so.........:)

And they all said this.

A president, set a precedent. We are not crooks, we're the GOP.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Lol damage, you have to show I.d. To get in the dem. national Conv. An many other things in life and you are ok with that but not to vote?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's correct.

The motives behind it are what to look at. Not where else you need ID.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Actually it shows your not consistent at all, that sounds like when dems say it's the seriousness of the charges not if they are true.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Is this the first thread of this nature that you have noticed?

It would seem so by your dismissive comment.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Yea heaven forbid you are actually constant. What was I thinking

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I maintain conceptual continuity.

Not surprising, that you fail to notice.

You fail to notice a lot of things.

I wonder why?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

You practice typical dem con. Do as I say not as I do. I know why you are that way your a hypocrite no shock there

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where did I say, do as say, not as I do, in reference to voter purging?

You really need to stop making things up.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Acorn you defended it and knowing they are still around under a different name breaking the law is and rail against the reps for foreign the group who done the same thing is a great example of do as I say not as I do.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Prove it.

There's plenty of proof, here on the site about (R)epelican't voter/election fraud.

Yet not a dimes worth to support your statement.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28261) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I saw the announcement on PBS yesterday. Yep they can't mess with that till after the start of the new year. Now lets hope to see the same decision made in other voter suppression states.

PBS 10/02/2012

[-] -3 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

Then I shouldn't have to show I.D. For anything. Since you people are convinced that blacks are too stupid to figure out how to get one then I shouldn't have to even posess one.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

You are ignorant and absurd. Try voting is a Constitutional right. And a necessity for a functioning Representative Republic. You moron. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to air travel on a private airline or anything else that requires identification. So I suggest you keep that id of yours and stfu.

Not to mention there is zero evidence that voter fraud exists to any extent that has even the slightest iota of statistical significance. While Republican voter suppression laws that have already been passed has the potential to affect up to 5 million people.

You don't want to show an id for anything? Great. Take your id and shove it up your ass. And I hope you live in a state that requires voter id. So a Republican precinct captain can perform a rectal exam on your ass. Be sure to have a full bowel and bend over you disgusting shitty mess.

[-] 2 points by Krypton (73) 1 year ago

Voting is not a Constitutional right. There are just amendments to protect infringement upon certain groups' voting ability. It states that senators and representatives are to be elected by "the people", but, by and large, the qualifications for eligibility to be included in "the people" are set by the states.

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

At the Federal level the right to vote is implied rather than explicit. The explicit power for it was given to the States. And in many State Constitutions voting rights are Constitutionally explicit. The fact that this single act, that is so vital to our democratic process is inconsistent, is not applied equally to all citizens, across all States, as it relates to Federal elections - is an epic fail. Which has yet to be addressed by Constitutional Amendment. Though it has been tried by many legislators and interest groups. Because it is recognized as a clear weakness.

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,” Mke Turzai, Pennsylvania state House Republican leader

Done.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

4.Barring conviction for either treason or for voting fraud, the right of all mentally healthy adult citizens to vote at all levels of government shall be guaranteed, the violation of which shall be punishable with equivalence to an act of treason. http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/