Pennsylvania Voter Suppression law in court
 

Reminder to the uninitiated with what these Voter ID laws are: these laws do not require any new Voter ID - they are taking multiple forms of Voter ID current and used in the past, and eliminating all but a few of the ID's that allow you to vote.

In other words, all voters have to show ID to vote, and always have. These suppression laws change that by eliminating many forms of ID that are currently allowed to be shown. A state may have 10 forms of ID that allow you to vote - these laws eliminate all but maybe three or four of those currently valid ID's.

So if you used a form of ID to vote that is eliminated by this new law, you may have to go get the different form of ID you didn't have to use in the past. What you have used as ID to vote for the past 10 years may no longer be allowable.

----------------------

This week in the War on Voting: Pennsylvania voter ID law gets its day(s) in court

Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law spent several days under court scrutiny this week and last. The judge in the case says he will issue his ruling on Aug. 13 or later.

At Politics PA, Managing Editor Keegan gives us a comprehensive district-by-district rundown of where in Pennsylvania the lack of acceptable voter IDs could have the most and least impact. An AFL-CIO data team did much of the work using information from the state department of transportation and the department of state.

Bottom Line: Nineteen of the 20 districts—congressional, state senate, state house—with the highest percentage of voters without PennDOT photo IDs are Democratic, most of them heavily so.

Democratic candidates are heavily favored to win these districts and some of them are guaranteed to do so regardless of how many voters are turned away for lack of acceptable ID because they are running unopposed. But the impact of having as much as 60 percent of voters without the right ID might change the results of statewide elections and Pennsylvania's margin in the presidential race.

As has been noted previously, large numbers of voters don't know that their IDs may have expired. Voters carrying an ID past its date of renewal will not be allowed to cast a regular ballot. This map shows the most heavily affected districts.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Ah, my old home state...but i hope suppression law stays and my sister can't find her driver's license and voter card...she's hard right and worst of all watches Fox...I tried to cure her, sent her a list of Obama's accomplishments - ok it was a short list - and told her he would give SS recepients a raise next year..;)...and Romney would cut her benefits and he hates women..Now i have to swing my sis in Ohio to hit the Obama button.:)

List of Obama accomplishments:


















Thud!

Oh Yeah, look who's closer to the pot

PM he has done enough :rolleyes:

Starting next year everyone is required to have health care insurance. Thus everyone will have an id. Let's just make it a pic ID and case closed.

Let's just hope people supplemented w/id's courtesy of others show their thankfulness by giving up their spot in the voting line, not to mention the E.R. :D

That is too simple a solution to ensure voter integrity. How would some politicians pad their vote with illegal aliens and felons if they implemented this?

Hmmm, and what side of the aisle do those politicians reside...:rolleyes::rolleyes:...and FTFY...

Voter integrity is already assured with the current system of Voter ID. Why should some of those currently accepted Voter ID's be disallowed and no longer used?

Do you have any valid reasons for disallowing current Voter ID's?

We know there is little to no voter fraud, as verified by a multiple-year the Bush DOJ.

Talk about voter disenfranchisement/suppression?

The Democratic Party just opened its coat deciding the voters (their voters) are wrong and they know better.

Why not just abolish democratic primaries all together! :tro:

Realize this. If you or your religion somehow supports only a man-woman marriage you are part of a hate group. Wake up America and realize who actually is intolerant.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...sey=nav%7Chead

LOL. Oh, Dell, your twisted logic defies ... logic. An anti-gay libertarian ran under the Democratic ticket in the primary. Is that too hard for you to understand? It's not the first time. Of course the organized Democratic party won't support him. Voters are free to do what they want. They might take a few seconds and discover what the candidates they are voting for actually stand for.

The Republican Party supports only man-woman marriage. The Democratic Party is adding a platform plank supporting marriage between any two people who love each other (gay marriage).

Yes, who is intolerant? You think it's the Democratic party? BWAAAHAAAAAAA.

not sure where you're going with that, but yes, a lot of people are intolerant. including religious people. now, if you're a good christian and follow the golden rule-i'm all for it. that's great.
but, if you're using religion as a way to excuse your hate and intolerance...well, i find that reprehensible. and back in the day, religion was used as an argument to keep slavery.

When the government is intolerant towards a religion whether it be because of birth control or supporting on straight marriages we have a problem Houston!

the govt is not supposed to be anything towards any religion. they're supposed to have nothing to do with whatever religion a group might espouse.
and i have problems with people who use their religion as a tool to beat others they don't like over the head (obviously in a figurative sense) or as a way to control public and govt policy. it's not supposed to have anything to do with laws, rights, the constitution, etc. if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't engage in it. but your not liking it, or condoning it, doesn't mean that others should be banned from it.


and your article above is about the democratic party and someone they don't want as a member of their party-quite different than your claim that 'the govt' is after him.

I'm more worried when Americans, who should know better, as it goes against everything this country stands for, are intolerant of a particular religion - like the hate against Muslims some in this country demonstrate.

The government isn't being intolerant towards the religion, they are being intolerant of that religion forcing their religious views on everyone else. Quite a big difference. I wouldn't conflate them as you do.

Then when a Government tells a particular religion whose doctrine dictates ABC they have to provide BC to their employees we again have a problem.

It's not like that particular religion are beating their wives or killing their daughters?

Funny how reporters here are on tip toes quoting Sikhs and them explaining what the difference between their religion and Islam. Mainly they treat women equal, do not demand anyone else convert to their religion and invite everyone, regardless of race or religion into their services. In other words quite the opposite.

False. Simply, completely, false.

That is not happening, Dell.

There are religious exemptions, NO religion is being forced by the government to provide birth control under the ACA



What bull.shiat. Your continued, deliberate and proud ignorance and hate of "Islam" is unbelievable. Can you just. stop. with. pushing. your. bigotry. here? Keep your hate of, and lies about, Muslims to yourself? You've pushed the same false and ignorant nonsense about Islam for years on this board. I doubt your talk would be as tolerated if it was about Jews or Christians. Look in a mirror before you lecture others about religious hate.

I'd guess you think all "Christian" sects are the same. You know, that the hatemongers of Westboro Baptist represents all Baptist sects - or all Christians.

that's just not the case. they have said insurers must include birth control as part of their overall services. it's not the employers responsibility, but humana's or bcbs, etc. no one's being forced to buy/use the stuff either. so, people are free to continue to use the rhythm method as the pope tells them.
i mean, seriously, you think most people don't use the stuff??? that's hilarious.

Loyola University in Chicago is self-insured. I've heard nothing about them being exempted and they will go along with the government's imposition on religion.

I have heard Notre Dame, also self-insured, may be willing to pay some sort of penalty.

And I have no problem personally with people 'using the stuff'.
Just as long as they pay for their own stuff and others are left out of it!

every other aspect of pregnancy is handled by health care and insurance. i don't get why you and some others have an issue with bc being included. especially when one considers some of the other things that are covered.

Personally I don't have a problem with it either but obviously others do. And I respect freedom of religion (as long as its doctrines are within the country's laws) more than I do the freedom to receive free BC pills.

Face it we were lied to once again. If BC actually lowers healthcare costs overall insurance companies by way of free market would have had it included all along.

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all! :wf

car policies cover any driver given permission to drive. so an individual doesn't have to have car insurance, but the owner of the car does...so there goes your analogy. they aren't similar, so i'm not sure why people keep trying to have a correlation between one kind of insurance and another.

they are forcing people to buy, so as to keep the whole thing afloat. if there was no way to compel the young and healthy to buy, obamacare would be far too costly for insurance companies.

Once again, Dell, what you say is blatently false: this administration is NOT forcing birth control as part of health insurance policies on any group with religious objections. There is a simple out, to protect the civil rights of employees from religious persecution (for not agreeing with employer), where the insurance company will provide it, and the employer will have nothing to do with it.

You're entitled to your opinions Dell, but you've been far outvoted by the rest of your American fellows, who prefer a 21st century country, rather than a 1700's one. Get over it or move out.

Yeah that.

Except mine of course, LOL.

No religion.

and back to the topic at hand (gotta love the title to this thread :rolleyes: )


judge rules:


http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-j...141100233.html

He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said.


much like the scotus ruling a few years ago. the burden to get i.d. is the same for all, the law isn't discriminatory.

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

Yes, the judge used the word "ruling". There's a little more to it than that.

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on that he would not give an injunction right now against implementation. Will you give us an injunction temporarily halting implementation, Judge? No, Judge says. But the law is still being appealed immediately to the higher court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the actual law. The law has not been ruled "legal".

" He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said."

You sure?

Yes, according to the legal opinions that have been stated about what it was the judge was ruling upon, which was only the injunction. The judge was asked to stop the current implementation, while the constitutionality is determined. The judge chose not to block implementation while the constitutionality is being determined.

Try this, it's pretty detailed:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-supreme-court

http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/...Inj_081512.pdf

This is more detailed. And not a blog.

NPR is not a "blog".

The judge did not rule on the constitutionality, he was not asked to rule on the constitutionality, he was asked, and he ruled only not to give an injunction while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed.

You can't possibly still be disputing that, are you? You are saying you think the judge ruled the law unconstitutional? No, he didn't.

The judge only ruled against a temporary injunction. He only ruled the law can go into effect (no injunction) while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed before November.

Law upheld as constitutional. Repeats over and over in the pdf.

No, it does not. The judge comments on the consitutionality, yes - but that's not what the judge ruled upon which was only the injunction

etc, etc., he talks about the constitutionality. But the judge did not rule upon the constitutionality of this law. He declined to do so Please read page 68 of your PDF, which is the judges final order: it is only that the petition for injunction is denied - there is NO RULING on the constitutionality of this law.