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.