Pennsylvania isn't the only state where Republicans created a voter-ID law to suppress the vote in 2012, but it's one of the more offensive examples. By some estimates, nearly 1-in-10 eligible voters in Pennsylvania will be disenfranchised as part of a GOP scheme to rig the election.
They haven't even been subtle about it. Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania's House Majority Leader, boasted that the state's new voter-ID law, ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
The available evidence suggests the state's voter-ID law disproportionately affects African Americans, students, and the poor -- the very constituencies the GOP doesn't want to participate. Given this, the issue has raised eyebrows at the Justice Department, which has launched an investigation.
In a three-page letter sent to Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele on Monday, DOJ requested state data on registered voters as well as the state's list of individuals with driver's licenses and ID cards.
Additionally, DOJ requested information on the state's efforts to educate voters about the new law as well as documents and records supporting a March 14 statement from the office of Gov. Tom Corbett (R) which claimed "99 percent of Pennsylvania's already have acceptable photo IDs." (The state's own data later proved that figure wrong.)
As Joan McCarter added, "If the DOJ does end up suing Pennsylvania, it will have to show that there is significant racial disparity in the law's effects, as well as the significance of the burden the ID requirement places on would-be voters." That may not be too difficult.
Complicating matters, civil-rights proponents are moving forward with a state trial, challenging the law on constitutional grounds. As part of the case, Pennsylvania officials conceded, in court documents, that there's been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn't likely to be in November.
Got that? Pennsylvania Republicans passed the voter-ID law to prevent the scourge of voter fraud, which they now admit, formally and in writing, doesn't really exist.
The trial is set to begin tomorrow. The Justice Department, meanwhile, expects a response from the state within 30 days.
Leave a Comment:
Ok I live in NYC, I do not own a car so i have never go a driving licence, I have never travelled outside the US so I have no passport. If I lived in one of the states mentioned I would need to apply for a ID card just to vote. There are many people who do not have the correct photo ID. I have a lot of cards with my name and photo on them but they don't count. The biggest problem I have is NOT letting the student ID card be a correct form of identification. By not allowing this they prove it is not about voter fraud but about stealing an election.
ever hear of a state ID? Do you smoke, drink, rent r-rated movies, have any checking accounts, job, credit cards or loans because they all require an ID at least once and i dont see anyone complaining about that. this is not stealing an election but preventing it from being stolen by the left after obama catered to illegals for years and is looking for his payback come nov.
Oh Joshua. Give it up. Republicans want to require voter ID's? Then Republicans need to ensure each citizen has the proper ID and it shouldn't be the citizen's responsibility to have to get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Trolls are out in force today, spreading their Fox News-approved lies. It's very simple, folks. It's been demonstrated that a.) vote fraud is far too rare to be an actual probelm and that b.) the true purpose of these laws is to make it harder to vote. Why is the GOP so afraid of democracy?
None of your spoon-fed talking points will change this.
A. voter If is not hard to find as someone who lives in WI you know we just had fraud in the recall election, petition signing B. There is nothing hard about getting a free id and there is literally nothing that can be said to prove otherwise
You are such an idiot, Joshua, that it's hard to know where to begin with you. However, when a state has its offices where one can obtain a voter-ID open only on the fifth Wednesday of the month (in other words, four times a year) it should be pretty clear even to a granite-skulled moron like yourself that there is no serious attempt by the state to make getting the free ID as easy as you seem to believe.
Just out of curiosity, are you one of those home-schooled morons? It would go far in explaining just how you have managed to display such stupidity and ignorance in public as you have.
Wow Tc calling me a moron yet all you bring to the table is personal attacks that really says a lot about your character. Let me ask you this are you seriously trying to argue that in the course of your life you have never needed a state ID or driver license? I don't care if the place is only open as often as you say people have had months/years to get an id that they need for day to day life anyways. To try and argue you can't get an id because you don't have enough warning is ridiculous i have had an ID since i was 18 because you need one for a job, to open a checking/savings account, see an R-rated movie and such there is no reason not to have one. No i went to private school through high school and then attended MATC for 2yrs so i would say i am pretty educated although i am not sure the same can be said for you.
Sinking to ad honimum attacks is just an indication of the weaknesses of your lying points.
Even ONE case of voter fraud, anywhere, is enough to justify these measures.
Nope, the arguments are completely against the wingnuts in favor of voter suppression:
Sorry wingnuts, when you want to take away a Constitutional right to millions of people, it's YOUR burden to justify it. To wit, you must:
- show there is voter fraud to the extent it requires the blunt instrument solutions you suggest,
- make it the state's responsibility to ensure that each legitimate citizen has the required proof that is demanded to vote. Voting is a Constitutional right.
If you can't do that, you have lost the right to implement your solution to a non-problem.
"Even ONE case of voter fraud, anywhere, is enough to justify these measures."
So, ONE murder committed with a gun is enough to warrant tough gun control laws? ONE incident of fracking causing pollution in someone's water supply is enough to merit stopping the practice of fracking throughout the country? ONE person dying because they're homeless would justify a broad--and expensive--new program guaranteeing everyone a roof over their heads? One case of ANYTHING happening is enough to merit government intervention?
Then, certainly, a major party presidential candidate who commits even one act of voter fraud (as Romney apparently did) would be cause for that person to be disqualified as a candidate for president.
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between.
Can someone please show me where in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights that state that citizens voting are required to show an ID. Did Washington, Adams, Jefferson or those voting for them require ID’s. Did citizens voting for Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson where they required ID’s how about Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. So where does this sense of urgency come from that would now require millions of those already voting to be placed in jeopardy of being not allowed to do their most basic “Right” as an American citizen and vote. No place in the Bill of Rights is there such a requirement. On the contrary it is quite the opposite as it is clearly defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which stated that … “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965".
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote”…. “Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.”
Those seeking who are touting these voter id laws that place a burden on those wanting to engage in the political process should win those voters over by making their case, and speaking to their needs and working toward better solutions that would bring bi -partisan contribution to good of the country. Instead they want to restrict their access, is that American? How about making a legitimate case to the electorate and if those don’t agree with you then let the chips fall where they may don’t stack the deck in your favor because you want to assure that the outcome is favorably to your side because you cheated the system, for then you cheat Democracy and you then chip away of the foundations that we hold as a nation that all men are created equal… we have evolved to Nation of one American and not just for those that can show their papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Straw Man argument.
The Constitution leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Some states have decided that they want to see a universally possessed, easily obtainable, picture ID before giving the franchise.
We don't see a problem here, and, I hate to tell the sheeple here, that most , if not all , of these laws will stand.
You know the wingnuts are getting nervous about one of their pet issues when they spend all day trolling. Sorry wingnuts, when you want to take away a Constitutional right to millions of people, it's YOUR burden to justify it. To wit, you must:
- show there is voter fraud to the extent it requires the blunt instrument solutions you suggest,
- make it the state's responsibility to ensure that each legitimate citizen has the required proof that is demanded to vote. Voting is a Constitutional right.
If you can't do that, you have lost the right to implement your solution to a non-problem.
Voter ID: The Solution
President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and most of the rest of the Democratic Party disagree with the requirement of providing a photo I.D. to vote. Instead, anyone who wants to vote should be required to show two years of tax returns, which should be acceptable to the Democrats because they seem to love tax returns. Now there may be constitutional issues with this, but after all, most Democratic leaders treat the Constitution just an ordinary piece of paper (like a napkin or toilet paper).
Furthermore, when we vote, we are really employing a president; one who gets paid by taxpayers. So really, should not only the people actually paying the president be the ones that vote? That is, those roughly 47% who do not pay federal income tax should not vote. Therefore, clueless freeloaders (e.g., the lazy, vagrants, bums, drug addicts, alcoholics, welfare baby makers, etc.) and most of the rest of the Democratic Party base (e.g., the perpetually unemployed, the undereducated, the 'occupiers," uninformed college students, etc.) wouldn't be able to vote.
There you have it. Obama, Holder and the Democratic Party would get their way. It has a few kinks but you can't please all the people all the time.
Joe - nice job of proving one need not be a freeloader to be clueless.
Here's the solution, Joe: Vote By Mail. There are no poll workers to present ID to, because they don't exist in our state. You show proof of citizenship when you register. Never again.
We've been doing this in Oregon since 1999, and the problem you're supposedly trying to correct doesn't exist.
The tealiban party are great fans of Judy Tenuta and have picked up their mantra from her: It could happen!
Paul Waverick, founder of ALEC and Reagan campaign leader told a group of GOP Christian activists some years ago in church..."How many of you believe in what I call the Goo-Goo syndrome...good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. In fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down...."
Since then ALEC has written and had GOP legislators push voter ID laws in the states to suppress the vote.
I'm 72y.o. let us say, and my Birth Certificate was not a long form BC so I had to get the right form to send off with my $25 payment to get my long form BC which took 6wks and then I had to go to the right office to get a picture ID when I felt well enough to do so since I have pulmonary hypertension and on O2 just so I would have a picture ID to go along with my voter card which already had My signature and was good enough for the past 50yrs. ...and you want others worse off than I to jump through such hoops to vote when there is absolutely no evidence of intentional voter fraud anywhere in the country except for Romney. Next they will be demanding that you pee in a cup to vote. This costly business is a waste of time and energy and here you are trying to justify this stupidity. Sad.
Why waste words. These voter ID laws are intended to prevent the the re-election of the first black president in U.S. history. If Obama was a white man this issue would not being discussed Any other reasons given are pure baloney!
Most of those who favor the voter ID law simply ignore the facts. The motivation for passing these laws was to help Republicans overcome the edge Democrats hold among minorities, the poor and college students. This was demonstrated by how these laws originated, that is, as a plan cooked up by the Koch Brothers and spread through ALEC. It was also confirmed by State Rep. Turzai's comment that the goal is to assure victory for Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania. As for the purported motivation, to prevent voter fraud, there is no evidence ID-related fraud is a problem, and here in Pennsylvania, the state has conceded exactly that. So people can scrounge for "common sense" arguments about buying beer and medications all they want, but the issue isn't why someone doesn't have the required identification or how they get by without it. The issue is the concerted effort to make it more difficult for certain people to exercise their basic, inalienable human right to vote. You know, one of the foundations of the free society we live in, the reason we send young men off to war to fight and die. Ironically, the people who miss this point are the same people who have been whining for nearly four years about how President Obama is intent on taking away their rights and freedoms. Such people only care about the Constitution as it applies to them, and, of course, only when they happen to agree with what that document says. That, my friends, in a nutshell is classic hypocrisy.
Educate yourselves wingnuts:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012
I, too, fail to understand why someone cannot or will not obtain an ID card. On the other hand, how can some that are up in arms claiming mandatory health insurance is an intrusion of their rights, not up in arms about mandatory voter ID?
Is this just flip-flopping or selective uproar?
In the Public Welfare system, IDs are required.
I find it difficult to understand why obtaining a form of ID is so hard. On the other hand, why are some of the same people up in arms about mandatory health insurance not steadfast against mandatory voter ID?
Is that floppy-floppy?
Because not everybody has easy access. Many are disabled, alone, etc.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012
I wonder how many people look at the smiling faces of all those people, black and white, young and old, male and female, proudly doing their duty by displaying their voter ID cards and think, "That's swell, but it's too much trouble, I guess I won't vote this time" without for a minute realizing that that's the whole point of the voter ID cards!
No, not buying this. (1) I have to show my ID to check out a free book from the library. (2) As a former Navy wife, I always registered to vote where I lived, in order to vote. The one time I did not update my address, I voted by Absentee Vote.
We show IDs for nearly every aspect of life. Why not show it to vote?
Wendy, with all due respect, you're obviously not one of the voters this law targets. Imagine yourself living in the heart of Philadelphia. You registered to vote with the help of your church. Now, after voting for 10 years, the state has changed the rules. So you go to the library to access a computer and chance upon the state's voter site. You'll find dozens of links to various documents, few of which you're likely to sort out. Buried in the documentation is the fact that you'll have to make two visits to a DMV center to get the necessary ID. The online form has to be printed out and at the bottom it states that the ID costs $13 with no mention that the fee can be waived. You also have to obtain a birth certificate, which will cost about as much as the ID. While there's a procedure to circumvent this requirement, the information to do so is convoluted. You get the point? If not, I'll spell it out: the Voter ID law is more difficult to negotiate than any literacy test or poll tax ever was. And if this doesn't resonate with you, then read my post below.
Wendy, you seem intelligent enough to buy or not buy something. So, then why do you "buy" that voter fraud is happening, when they said it is not happening? Also, you are taking a book out of the library, so the card shows who had the book. The people already registered and voted. The registrar verified already.
You seem smart enough to understand that there are people that would have an extra (monetary or otherwise) BURDEN put on them in order to vote, when they have voted in the past without that same burden.
Unless you WANT there to be an extra burden to prevent people that voted in past elections from voting?
According to the Pennsylvania Constitution: Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. That's as clear as any statement in the U.S. Bill of Rights and is also the crux of the ACLU suit. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is investigating whether the state law is in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Both the evidence and the law appear heavily in favor of overturning this transparently discriminatory effort by the state's GOP legislators and governor to disenfranchise voters. Gov. Corbett in signing the law stated it would prevent voter fraud, yet in his 8 years at state attorney general he prosecuted not one case. Either he was not telling the truth or he hadn't done his job as the state's top law enforcement official. Not only are these particular Republicans scoundrels, they're unbelievably stupid.