Pennsylvania judge blocks Voter ID law

[jerryskids 7,085]

Disenfranchise : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

 

I don't think you lefties understand this definition, because you are using it wrong. Nobody is being deprived of the right to vote. The issue at hand is the amount of effort required to vote. Some effort is currently required: you need to physically get to the polling place for instance, or have a valid address to receive an absentee ballot.

 

One could argue that the need for ID is significantly less restrictive, because you have the entire year to get to the DMV at your scheduling convenience, whereas elections happen (typically) on one day.

 

[Frank M 181]

The beauty about fraud is that you don't know it is happening. Only a fool would attempt to determine the degree of fraud and pass it as fact. HTH

 

 

Says the guy who just claimed as fact that a whole election was decided by fraud!

 

Degree of fraud: the whole election in 1960!

 

Do you ever get tired of making yourself look like an ass?

[Frank M 181]

Disenfranchise : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

 

I don't think you lefties understand this definition, because you are using it wrong. Nobody is being deprived of the right to vote. The issue at hand is the amount of effort required to vote. Some effort is currently required: you need to physically get to the polling place for instance, or have a valid address to receive an absentee ballot.

 

One could argue that the need for ID is significantly less restrictive, because you have the entire year to get to the DMV at your scheduling convenience, whereas elections happen (typically) on one day.

 

 

From the ruling judge:

"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 upcoming election," Simpson wrote. "Under these circumstances, I am obliged to enter a preliminary injunction."

 

Are you some sort of legal scholar that knows more than this judge?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You keep saying it's "fact", but you provide absolutely nothing to back it up. Then when your anti-American butt-buddy comes up with a link demonstrating that voter fraud is, in fact, anything but rampant, you say that the article must be wrong!!

 

it's cute how you think eveyone who commits voter fraud is caught. They teach you that in Lawyer school?

 

Nobody on this bored comes close to your level of dumb.

[MDC 7,889]

Nobody on this bored comes close to your level of dumb.

 

I don't know about that. Worms may not be a genius, but I have a feeling if he saw a wifi network called "FBI Surveillance Van" he wouldn't think it was actually the FBI. Neither would he consider knocking on the van window and telling them to change the name of their signal.

 

He's got that going for him.

[Phurfur 70]

 

Says the guy who just claimed as fact that a whole election was decided by fraud!

 

Degree of fraud: the whole election in 1960!

 

Do you ever get tired of making yourself look like an ass?

 

Look it up Moron! 1960 fraud was found in 11 states.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I don't know about that. Worms may not be a genius, but I have a feeling if he saw a wifi network called "FBI Surveillance Van" he wouldn't think it was actually the FBI. Neither would he consider knocking on the van window and telling them to consider changing the name of their signal.

 

He's got that going for him.

 

I just saw some guy on the street wearing a shirt that said KGB on it. Do you think I should alert the CIA? I think I saw one of their vans around a few hours ago...

[jerryskids 7,085]

From the ruling judge:

 

 

Are you some sort of legal scholar that knows more than this judge?

No, but perhaps he is one of those lefties I mentioned who doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

[Strike 6,023]

From the ruling judge:

 

 

Are you some sort of legal scholar that knows more than this judge?

 

If judges were always right we wouldn't need appeals courts. Didn't this judge get smacked down by an appeals court on this case once already?

[naomi 360]

This website presents the current ID requirements for voting in all the states. It's including the suspension of the photo ID law in PA.

 

Voter ID: State Requirements

 

Didn't know about this:

Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law was held unconstitutional on March 12, 2012. It could take effect before November 2012 if that ruling is reversed by a higher court.

 

In Table 2 it breaks down the details* of what the states are requiring when they have 'strict photo ID', 'photo ID', 'strict non-photo ID', or 'non-strict, non-photo id.'

 

*For ex: can a University photo ID be used when you don't have a state issued one?

 

If the argument for opponents of the PA law is a perception of disenfranchisement, there's a lot more out there that should bother you.

 

Not having a social security number means you can't obtain the ID required in a number of those states. Having a birth certificate, the first and base recognition of your natural citizenship, doesn't matter.

 

As far as a right being denied based on state imposed hurdles for poll access though...the only time you definitely have a federal case is if breaching any of amendments having to do with voting eligibility is how your state is limiting your access.

 

The constitution leaves it up to the states to establish their criteria for suffrage...just as long as it doesn't at any point hinge on your sex, race, age as long as you're over 18, and failure to pay a poll or other tax to participate in a federal election.

[Phurfur 70]

The fact that the Voter ID laws are being upheld across the country shows what a bunch of crap this is.

 

And the Indoctrinated Lefty Lemmings on this board are defending it to the end.

 

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a voter identification law passed by Indiana,

 

PHOENIX – An appeals court upheld a requirement in a 2004 Arizona law that voters show identification before they can cast ballots, saying that there wasn't evidence that the mandate disparately affected Latinos as the challengers had alleged.

 

A 12-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling Tuesday that there was evidence Arizona has racially polarized voting and a history of discrimination against Latinos, but concluded that no proof was offered to show that the ID requirement gave Latinos fewer opportunities to vote.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/17/appeals-court-upholds-arizona-voter-id-requirement/#ixzz28GmRRxRp

 

but everyone is ignoring this

 

The court, however, found that the federal National Voter Registration Act trumps another section of the Arizona law that requires people to prove their citizenship in order to vote.

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/17/appeals-court-upholds-arizona-voter-id-requirement/#ixzz28GmRRxRp

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Bump.