• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PA Voter ID Law halted per CNN

Funny, the local news outlets here haven't reported it. They were all strongly in favor of it though and have a tendency to delay reporting "bad news" for as long as possible.


Edit: We just got it on the local feeds. They buried it down with a story early this morning about the decision being issued. A pleasant surprise though I'm not sure the State Supreme Court gave the judge much of an option.
 
Last edited:
Loki97 said:
Funny, the local news outlets here haven't reported it. They were all strongly in favor of it though and have a tendency to delay reporting "bad news" for as long as possible.


Edit: We just got it on the local feeds. They buried it down with a story early this morning about the decision being issued. A pleasant surprise though I'm not sure the State Supreme Court gave the judge much of an option.
Click to expand...

More judicial activism... How sad.
 
Great!!! It just shows how egregiously flawed these laws are.

You want to reform voter laws? Go for it, you have two years until the mid-terms to work out all the kinks.

As of now there is nothing but turmoil and confusion just a month from a presidential election, which IMHO was the intent all along.
 
Loki97 said:
Funny, the local news outlets here haven't reported it. They were all strongly in favor of it though and have a tendency to delay reporting "bad news" for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought the MSM was all controlled by Communists who hate these sort of laws because it keeps them from committing fraud.
 
Grim17 said:
More judicial activism... How sad.
Click to expand...

Surely you mean an unbiased judge disallowing an obvious politically motivated law designed to solve a problem that does not exist?


 
Grim17 said:
More judicial activism... How sad.
Click to expand...

Judicial activism, AKA "I don't agree with the ruling, so it's obvious the judge is over stepping their boundaries!!"
 
Jonsa said:
Surely you mean an unbiased judge disallowing an obvious politically motivated law designed to solve a problem that does not exist?


Click to expand...


In reality, a judge who originally made a very partisan decision that apparently weighed the nonexistent problem(as admitted by the state) to be more important than the conceded 700k voters who might be adversely effected. What seems to have swayed him is that none of the State Supreme Court justices agreed with his decision. Two said he should have struck down the law outright and four voted to vacate the ruling and have him reexamine his decision. As it stands now the law will still go in effect next year, though I imagine Republican enthusiasm for it has waned greatly now that it can't hand the state to Romney as Turzai gloated that it would.
 
Loki97 said:
In reality, a judge who originally made a very partisan decision that apparently weighed the nonexistent problem(as admitted by the state) to be more important than the conceded 700k voters who might be adversely effected. What seems to have swayed him is that none of the State Supreme Court justices agreed with his decision. Two said he should have struck down the law outright and four voted to vacate the ruling and have him reexamine his decision. As it stands now the law will still go in effect next year, though I imagine Republican enthusiasm for it has waned greatly now that it can't hand the state to Romney as Turzai gloated that it would.
Click to expand...

The law was popular with everybody including a majority of democrats.
**************************************************************************************************************
Meanwhile, as the state’s new Voter ID law works its way through the courts, the requirement remains popular.

“While judges and politicians debate Pennsylvania’s voter ID measure, voters are solidly in support of the measure, 62 – 35 percent,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “And 99 percent of voters say they believe they have the necessary documents to cast a ballot.”

F&M found similar support: 59 percent of respondents said they favor the law, while 39 percent said they opposed it.

However, critics who oppose the Voter ID requirement do room to win the public opinion battle. Of those who said initially that they favor the law, 21 percent changed their minds when asked, “Would you still favor this law if you knew that many eligible voters will be prevented from voting because they will not have a proper ID?”

That’s the crux of legal and political arguments against the law.

51 percent of respondents oppose the law when that 21 percent are figured in, while 47 percent remain opposed
Polls: Corbett Not Popular, But Voter ID Is | PoliticsPA
 
jerry7 said:
The law was popular with everybody including a majority of democrats.
**************************************************************************************************************
Meanwhile, as the state’s new Voter ID law works its way through the courts, the requirement remains popular.

“While judges and politicians debate Pennsylvania’s voter ID measure, voters are solidly in support of the measure, 62 – 35 percent,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “And 99 percent of voters say they believe they have the necessary documents to cast a ballot.”

F&M found similar support: 59 percent of respondents said they favor the law, while 39 percent said they opposed it.

However, critics who oppose the Voter ID requirement do room to win the public opinion battle. Of those who said initially that they favor the law, 21 percent changed their minds when asked, “Would you still favor this law if you knew that many eligible voters will be prevented from voting because they will not have a proper ID?”

That’s the crux of legal and political arguments against the law.

51 percent of respondents oppose the law when that 21 percent are figured in, while 47 percent remain opposed
Polls: Corbett Not Popular, But Voter ID Is | PoliticsPA
Click to expand...

Segregation probably was popular with a majority in some states also. I'm sure you might even find a few states where establishing Christianity as the official religion would gain majority approval. When you are dealing with people being denied their constitutional rights, it isn't a popularity contest. It is telling that a party that claims to worship the Constitution is so willing to discard it for any potential political advantage.
 
BWG said:
Great!!! It just shows how egregiously flawed these laws are.

You want to reform voter laws? Go for it, you have two years until the mid-terms to work out all the kinks.

As of now there is nothing but turmoil and confusion just a month from a presidential election, which IMHO was the intent all along.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right! The fact that they did this in the year of an election shows that there intent was to supress voters. I don't think anyone will have an objection if they do this when there are no elections. The ironic part of this is all the voter fraud has been done by republicans for the upcoming elections!!
 
Loki97 said:
Segregation probably was popular with a majority in some states also. I'm sure you might even find a few states where establishing Christianity as the official religion would gain majority approval. When you are dealing with people being denied their constitutional rights, it isn't a popularity contest. It is telling that a party that claims to worship the Constitution is so willing to discard it for any potential political advantage.
Click to expand...

Ensuring a person's identity and eligibility to vote does not violate their constitutional rights.
 
jerry7 said:
Ensuring a person's identity and eligibility to vote does not violate their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the court's opinion counts and yours doesn't. The law will still go into effect next year but that kind of defeats the real purpose of it doesn't it? I mean, it's hard to believe the .2 illegal votes that may happen in PA in the meantime will cause the collapse of democracy.
 
Loki97 said:
Fortunately, the court's opinion counts and yours doesn't. The law will still go into effect next year but that kind of defeats the real purpose of it doesn't it? I mean, it's hard to believe the .2 illegal votes that may happen in PA in the meantime will cause the collapse of democracy.
Click to expand...

If it violates constitutional rights why has the court allowed it to go into effect next year? And why has the US Supreme Court already ruled that the very similar Indiana law is constitutional?
 
jerry7 said:
Ensuring a person's identity and eligibility to vote does not violate their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

By all means have voters produce a valid ID.

But in order for it not to be a "poll tax" the government would have to ensure that getting this ID is at no cost to the voter. So if someone needs a copy of a birth certificate or some such, the government should pay for that as well.

that and make sure that there enough time for the government to adequately notify all of the electorate and establish the necessary administrative resources to manage it smoothly.
 
jerry7 said:
If it violates constitutional rights why has the court allowed it to go into effect next year? And why has the US Supreme Court already ruled that the very similar Indiana law is constitutional?
Click to expand...

You know, you could either read the decision or have someone read it to you. To summarize, the judge found there was no way in hell that they could assure that everyone was issued an ID in time for this election. Part of the problem is PennDOT employees either being unsure of requirements themselves or issuing incorrect instructions for procuring an ID. I've seen this first hand both in PA and especially with the Indiana BMV. You call three times and you will get three different answers to what documents you need to bring in. I will point out that the state has recently lowered the requirements for a voting only ID to just giving your name and SS#. I would ask, if the supposed intent of the law is to stop me from voting under my dead uncle's name, do they really think I can't get his SS#?
 
Loki97 said:
You know, you could either read the decision or have someone read it to you. To summarize, the judge found there was no way in hell that they could assure that everyone was issued an ID in time for this election. Part of the problem is PennDOT employees either being unsure of requirements themselves or issuing incorrect instructions for procuring an ID. I've seen this first hand both in PA and especially with the Indiana BMV. You call three times and you will get three different answers to what documents you need to bring in. I will point out that the state has recently lowered the requirements for a voting only ID to just giving your name and SS#. I would ask, if the supposed intent of the law is to stop me from voting under my dead uncle's name, do they really think I can't get his SS#?
Click to expand...

You seemed to imply previously that voter ID is unconstitutional. Now you seem to agree that it isn't. And you would be correct. I am a resident of Pa. who has voted at the same location for 20 years. In 2008 I was challenged with the allegation that my signature did not match the one on record which is always inverted, plainly in sight. My signature is very distinctive and easy to duplicate. I am also registered republican in a heavily democratic ward. I was told I could not vote without a government issued photo ID. I smiled, produced my driver's license and asked to be shown the discrepancy in signatures. There was none. I know what voter suppresion is.
 
jerry7 said:
You seemed to imply previously that voter ID is unconstitutional. Now you seem to agree that it isn't. And you would be correct. I am a resident of Pa. who has voted at the same location for 20 years. In 2008 I was challenged with the allegation that my signature did not match the one on record which is always inverted, plainly in sight. My signature is very distinctive and easy to duplicate. I am also registered republican in a heavily democratic ward. I was told I could not vote without a government issued photo ID. I smiled, produced my driver's license and asked to be shown the discrepancy in signatures. There was none. I know what voter suppresion is.
Click to expand...

Or you can recognize it when you are the victim and not when others are. The law was essentially ruled unconstitutional if implemented immediately as originally planned since the conclusion was it would have disenfranchised otherwise legal voters. Considering it is an 11M+ solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the GOP should just acknowledge that this attempt at election manipulation failed and move on.
 
Loki97 said:
Segregation probably was popular with a majority in some states also. I'm sure you might even find a few states where establishing Christianity as the official religion would gain majority approval. When you are dealing with people being denied their constitutional rights, it isn't a popularity contest. It is telling that a party that claims to worship the Constitution is so willing to discard it for any potential political advantage.
Click to expand...


Loki breaking it down. I like that. +10
 
jerry7 said:
You seemed to imply previously that voter ID is unconstitutional. Now you seem to agree that it isn't. And you would be correct. I am a resident of Pa. who has voted at the same location for 20 years. In 2008 I was challenged with the allegation that my signature did not match the one on record which is always inverted, plainly in sight. My signature is very distinctive and easy to duplicate. I am also registered republican in a heavily democratic ward. I was told I could not vote without a government issued photo ID. I smiled, produced my driver's license and asked to be shown the discrepancy in signatures. There was none. I know what voter suppresion is.
Click to expand...

that great you were able to produce a id card, however not everyone has id card or ever needed one for everyday living in their community. A lot people including myself don't have driver's licence. I do have id card in CA. If voter fraud was such a big problem then any government trying to require photo id also needs to provide easy way for their citizens to get one. Something this law didn't do.
 
good move PA!

proud of my state today


and for the record Im totally in favor of voter ID under MY conditions.

that many forms of IDs that already exist are accepted and one can easily and readily be obtained from the state free of charge at many locations including on line and by mail.

Why I didnt want PA to do it NOW is because the time frame was unfair and thats also what PA decided.

Cant implement a law like this so close to elections, thats BS because in REALITY there are many people that would have issues getting an ID and that simply is not right.
 
Last edited:
The flood gates are openned and rightully so. Now Ohio is next, then Wisconsin and then florida.

Can I have an Amen on that AAAAAAMEEEENNNNN
 
rocket88 said:
Wait, I thought the MSM was all controlled by Communists who hate these sort of laws because it keeps them from committing fraud.
Click to expand...

That's national, the local markets have to survive locally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom