Judge upholds tough Pa. voter ID law

[thereisnospoon]

Yawn on those who can't prove their is any significant voter fraud in the first place, Zander.

This is the excuse liberals have been using to oppose voter ID laws. That voter fraud is not significant. Horse shit.
Why wait until the horse runs away before locking the barn door.
Would you agree that a bank should not have a vault because the bank has never been robbed before?
The confidence and integrity of the elections system MUST be protected. Voter ID laws further that idea.
If certain people who don't have a shred of personal responsibility are inconvenienced, so be it.
Those same people will never rent a hotel room, rent a car, take a commercial flight, apply for a loan, obtain a bank account, operate an automobile, pick up a prescription, etc.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is NO good reason NOT to have a good, solid Voter ID Law in place that should apply to the act of registering to vote as well as to actually voting.

But such a law does have to be a good and solid law and cannot merely be some pretext to suppress the vote of one group or the other.

Thee is no reason it cannot be fashioned WELL before any future elections.

But I suspect that there IS a reason the current laws get challenged in a way that more or less compels that injunctions against their use be granted JUST before these elections this time.

Once a voter has established he is eligible to vote at registration, there is no rational basis or evidence in support of him being required to ‘prove’ he’s eligible to vote at every election; requiring a photo ID clearly manifests an undue burden to exercising a fundamental right.

If election officials in a given jurisdiction have evidence a voter is committing fraud, or violating any other election law, then move against that individual alone based on the evidence.

And what we’ve seen with many voter ID laws that pass Constitutional muster is a lack of an undue burden to voting, where citizens may document their identity with a check stub, utility bill, or award letter from a government agency.

 

[Political Junky]

There is NO good reason NOT to have a good, solid Voter ID Law in place that should apply to the act of registering to vote as well as to actually voting.

But such a law does have to be a good and solid law and cannot merely be some pretext to suppress the vote of one group or the other.

Thee is no reason it cannot be fashioned WELL before any future elections.

But I suspect that there IS a reason the current laws get challenged in a way that more or less compels that injunctions against their use be granted JUST before these elections this time.

Once a voter has established he is eligible to vote at registration, there is no rational basis or evidence in support of him being required to ‘prove’ he’s eligible to vote at every election; requiring a photo ID clearly manifests an undue burden to exercising a fundamental right.

If election officials in a given jurisdiction have evidence a voter is committing fraud, or violating any other election law, then move against that individual alone based on the evidence.

And what we’ve seen with many voter ID laws that pass Constitutional muster is a lack of an undue burden to voting, where citizens may document their identity with a check stub, utility bill, or award letter from a government agency.

You must have loved "Minority Report".

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is NO good reason NOT to have a good, solid Voter ID Law in place that should apply to the act of registering to vote as well as to actually voting.

But such a law does have to be a good and solid law and cannot merely be some pretext to suppress the vote of one group or the other.

Thee is no reason it cannot be fashioned WELL before any future elections.

But I suspect that there IS a reason the current laws get challenged in a way that more or less compels that injunctions against their use be granted JUST before these elections this time.

Once a voter has established he is eligible to vote at registration, there is no rational basis or evidence in support of him being required to ‘prove’ he’s eligible to vote at every election; requiring a photo ID clearly manifests an undue burden to exercising a fundamental right.

If election officials in a given jurisdiction have evidence a voter is committing fraud, or violating any other election law, then move against that individual alone based on the evidence.

And what we’ve seen with many voter ID laws that pass Constitutional muster is a lack of an undue burden to voting, where citizens may document their identity with a check stub, utility bill, or award letter from a government agency.

That is a lucid and well thought out...............rationalization.
Look, we're not reinventing the wheel here. We are attempting make sure the election process is secure. To give it the utmost integrity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why you can't prove there is any significant voter fraud.

Because there isn't any, because if there was, you would be letting us know.

I happen to agree with photo ID for voting if done properly as it has been done in several locations in the country.

However, PA and TX don't meet reasonable standards.

Yawn on those who can't prove their is any significant voter fraud in the first place, Zander.

This is the excuse liberals have been using to oppose voter ID laws. That voter fraud is not significant. Horse shit.
Why wait until the horse runs away before locking the barn door.
Would you agree that a bank should not have a vault because the bank has never been robbed before?
The confidence and integrity of the elections system MUST be protected. Voter ID laws further that idea.
If certain people who don't have a shred of personal responsibility are inconvenienced, so be it.
Those same people will never rent a hotel room, rent a car, take a commercial flight, apply for a loan, obtain a bank account, operate an automobile, pick up a prescription, etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Demonstrate there is a viable, justified threat.

Give us evidence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And that is why you can't prove there is any significant voter fraud.

Because there isn't any, because if there was, you would be letting us know.

I happen to agree with photo ID for voting if done properly as it has been done in several locations in the country.

However, PA and TX don't meet reasonable standards.

Yawn on those who can't prove their is any significant voter fraud in the first place, Zander.

This is the excuse liberals have been using to oppose voter ID laws. That voter fraud is not significant. Horse shit.
Why wait until the horse runs away before locking the barn door.
Would you agree that a bank should not have a vault because the bank has never been robbed before?
The confidence and integrity of the elections system MUST be protected. Voter ID laws further that idea.
If certain people who don't have a shred of personal responsibility are inconvenienced, so be it.
Those same people will never rent a hotel room, rent a car, take a commercial flight, apply for a loan, obtain a bank account, operate an automobile, pick up a prescription, etc.

There is no need to prove voter fraud. Just as there is no need to prove one must lock up their valuables.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Demonstrate there is a viable, justified threat.

Give us evidence.

No need. As long as the potential exists for cheating, there is a need to secure the integrity of the process.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And that is why you can't prove there is any significant voter fraud.

Because there isn't any, because if there was, you would be letting us know.

I happen to agree with photo ID for voting if done properly as it has been done in several locations in the country.

However, PA and TX don't meet reasonable standards.

Yawn on those who can't prove their is any significant voter fraud in the first place, Zander.

This is the excuse liberals have been using to oppose voter ID laws. That voter fraud is not significant. Horse shit.
Why wait until the horse runs away before locking the barn door.
Would you agree that a bank should not have a vault because the bank has never been robbed before?
The confidence and integrity of the elections system MUST be protected. Voter ID laws further that idea.
If certain people who don't have a shred of personal responsibility are inconvenienced, so be it.
Those same people will never rent a hotel room, rent a car, take a commercial flight, apply for a loan, obtain a bank account, operate an automobile, pick up a prescription, etc.

Reasonable to YOU.. An opinion. Very good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reasonable to the judges, and that is law, not opinion.

Next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Logical fallacy. Move along.

Demonstrate there is a viable, justified threat.

Give us evidence.

No need. As long as the potential exists for cheating, there is a need to secure the integrity of the process.

 

[Caroljo]

It's not racist.


Those who don't have valid ID, and may run across trouble obtaining one are the poor, the elderly and students.


While I don't think voter ID is necessary, I support the states right to decide. As long as due process is given. Pushing last min. changes before a national election, is wrong, and will disenfranchise many voters.

It's been talked about for 6 months or more, how long do they need? Once i heard about it, i would have been looking into getting the ID if i was serious about about voting. But then, i try to keep up on things, no like some people that pay attention to nothing that is going on in the world......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Caroljo, go read what the judge said about being on top of things. The lawmakers and the implimenters were anything but. They kept changing their minds.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Amazing how the wingnuts aren't screaming about GOP voter registration fraud in Florida.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Amazing how the wingnuts aren't screaming about GOP voter registration fraud in Florida.

You mean the company that was fired by the RNC for suspicious activity? You're a bit late there Kool Aide boy. Been taken care of.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Demonstrate there is a viable, justified threat.

Give us evidence.

No need. As long as the potential exists for cheating, there is a need to secure the integrity of the process.

Wrong.

Fundamental rights can not be preempted, restricted or otherwise curtailed because the government suspects a citizen might abuse his civil liberties.

JakeStarkey is correct that before the government may restrict a fundamental right, the state must provide documented evidence in support of that restriction.

No such evidence exists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Demonstrate there is a viable, justified threat.

Give us evidence.

No need. As long as the potential exists for cheating, there is a need to secure the integrity of the process.

Wrong.

Fundamental rights can not be preempted, restricted or otherwise curtailed because the government suspects a citizen might abuse his civil liberties.

JakeStarkey is correct that before the government may restrict a fundamental right, the state must provide documented evidence in support of that restriction.

No such evidence exists.

This has nothing to do with denying civil liberties. The wide availability of government or other acceptable ID free of charge available to anyone eliminates any possibility of discrimination or rights violations
If ID were available to say, only licensed drivers or one had to be a property owner, you'd have a case. However, ID is available to everyone and anyone who wishes to obtain one and again at no charge.
You people are evading the obvious because you've gotten into this so deep, you are creating your own legal language.
The fact of the matter is people have the potential to be dishonest. Things have to protected. I view the election process as one of the most sacred institutions. It separates us from other nations which have shall we say, less civilized processes.
You people are worrying about the one person who may be for some oddball reason cannot get from point A to point B in a year's time before the next election...We cannot risk the process .....better said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

 

[Immanuel]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

Did you miss this part?

Simpson ordered the state not to enforce the photo ID requirement in this year’s presidential election but will allow it to go into full effect next year.

What I read this afternoon was that he was not throwing out the law, but he stated that there were still too many who needed to be given id's so he postponed the law from going into effect until after the election.

Law stands, but those Dems who want to vote for the dead can vote in one more PA election.

Immie

 

[Old Rocks]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law




It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

Did you miss this part?

Simpson ordered the state not to enforce the photo ID requirement in this year’s presidential election but will allow it to go into full effect next year.

What I read this afternoon was that he was not throwing out the law, but he stated that there were still too many who needed to be given id's so he postponed the law from going into effect until after the election.

Law stands, but those Dems who want to vote for the dead can vote in one more PA election.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

thereisspoon is a potential threat to American freedoms.

Therefore, he must be sent to gitmo.

Spoon, quit being stupid.

No need. As long as the potential exists for cheating, there is a need to secure the integrity of the process.

Wrong.

Fundamental rights can not be preempted, restricted or otherwise curtailed because the government suspects a citizen might abuse his civil liberties.

JakeStarkey is correct that before the government may restrict a fundamental right, the state must provide documented evidence in support of that restriction.

No such evidence exists.

This has nothing to do with denying civil liberties. The wide availability of government or other acceptable ID free of charge available to anyone eliminates any possibility of discrimination or rights violations
If ID were available to say, only licensed drivers or one had to be a property owner, you'd have a case. However, ID is available to everyone and anyone who wishes to obtain one and again at no charge.
You people are evading the obvious because you've gotten into this so deep, you are creating your own legal language.
The fact of the matter is people have the potential to be dishonest. Things have to protected. I view the election process as one of the most sacred institutions. It separates us from other nations which have shall we say, less civilized processes.
You people are worrying about the one person who may be for some oddball reason cannot get from point A to point B in a year's time before the next election...We cannot risk the process .....better said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.