The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to that state's new election law -- considered the nation's strictest -- requiring photo ID to vote.
John L. Micek of Allentown's Morning Call is tweeting from the hearing. Sample: "McCaffery: Look at low end, that's 89k Pennsylvanians unable to vote. #voterID"
Below, a Micek picture from outside the courtroom.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Tonight’s show
Video: McDonnell, awash in scandal, sees conservative credibility eroded
Video: Cautious optimism at 'moderate' label on new Iranian president
Video: Wisconsin GOP doesn't trust women not to lie about rape
Video: House GOP follows states, prioritizes war on women
Video: Congress too frightened to allow Obama to close Guantanamo
Video: On tonight's show
Leave a Comment:
In Arizona we are now required to bring 2 more documents and our ID card in order to vote. They have moved around all the districts and we have to play find your voting location by your lonesome. I'm hoping the Post Office will be able to point us in the right direction. Meanwhile, I am informing people who live in retirement communities about the change along with all my friends and family. People need to be aware that just bringing your voting card or you State ID card isn't enough..this will of course cut down on Republicans being able to vote, much of whom are not going to vote anyway. That's why it's important for all Democrats and reformed Republicans( they're out there) to vote. We need to keep a madman from becoming President.
We will see if these court electees deserve the title of court justice, let alone supreme court justice. What may be tenuously legal does not imply it is just or meets the ideals of this country. Voting is the ultimate right of citizens.
Jim Cramer got a lot of attention when he tweeted that his elderly father, a war vet without a birth certificate, wouldn't be able to vote in Nov. State officials got on it quickly and his father will now be able to vote. If the PA Supreme Court upholds this law, does anyone think officials will be as diligent about the other 89,000+ people who may not be able to vote?!?
A birth certificate isn't required to vote in PA.
No, but a birth certificate may be required to obtain Pennsylvania approved ID.
*side note* That's the 'Block the Vote' graphic from PoliticsNation on the woman's sign on the right.
Having lived in Pennsyltucky long enough to have seen enough shenanigans on part of the "Supreme" Court, I can only feel cautiously pessimistic at this point. If the Court does vote strictly along partisan lines, the resulting 3-3 tie would leave the lower court's idiotic decision in place. (This outcome is only possible because one of the Justices, a Rape-Public-CON named Joan Orie Melvin has been suspended, only just now without pay, while awaiting trial on felony charges relating to using intimidation to force her staff to work on her reelection campaign - yes, we elect judges in Pennsyltucky).
The reason my pessimism is at all tempered is that some knowledgeable observers are suggesting that Justice Ron Castille (R), who has been known on a few previous occasions to break from the partisan "mold" and vote with apparent rationality, might be willing to do so again in this case. Most recently (and somewhat promisingly), his vote served to overturn the state's Rape-Public-CON redistricting scheme.
Still - as I said, we elect judges in Pennsyltucky. We've all seen how ideologically vindictive the Tealiban has been to those they view as "RINOs". Justice Castille won't stand for reelection again until December 2013 (assuming he doesn't choose to retire at that point - he's about 68 years old now) so there's a possibility that enough time could pass for passions to subside, or find another focus. But it remains to be seen to what extent he may be willing to count on that. Thus my pessimism tempered with "caution" - the Court could end up pleasantly surprising me by doing the right thing for a change.
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
The link is to Philly.com, and the comments are overwhelmingly Right Wing.
An example:
"Whats the big deal ? With all the illegals in our country I think it`s only right to have proof that your an American citizen .I have to prove who I am to get a drivers license so again,what`s the big deal ?"— bwheeler
What is lost in the argument that I- and a gazillion other Pennsylvanians- have been registered to vote, and HAVE DONE SO- for decades.
First time voters, sure, show the same 'proof" that we did, way back when.
Perhaps helping a party buy an election does not disturb the conscience as much as when you are just following orders. Those who helped in GWB's alleged victory are complicit and culpable in the deaths and injuries from the bogus Iraq war. Still angry after all these years!
The hypocrisy abounds in the debate over voter ID. If u attended the DNC convention, you were required to show ID in order to get into the building. What message was the DNC trying to send? It's ok to vote without ID, just don't try to join us at the convention without the necessary proof demonstrating who you are? I find the debate over this so-called "injustice" laughable at best. People are required to show ID everyday for a host of reasons, from cashing a check(un-employment?) to buying a pack of cigarettes. Is it the democrats assertion that millions of people are being denied the right to purchase alcohol, tobacco, or to cash a check? Hardly. To all those who oppose voter ID, humor me, and keep a log of all the instances in which you are required to show ID on a daily basis. You cant even enter the MSNBC studio, without a photo ID. Now that's rich!!!!!
As I grew up in a large city, let me break it to you. All of the scenarios you've laid out may "require Id", however, in the real world, I didn't need ID to buy cigarettes, or when cashing a check or when purchasing alcohol. First off, back then the "law" requiring such checks were spotty at best and usually not enforced. And my "southern" rooted Grandparents - I never needed ID, I could walk in the bar at 6 ask for a quart, get it and bring it home.
Even today, have you never heard of "fake ID" - it looks so real it does fool people that look at ID's all the time. And really people that are 70 and older - all of them weren't born in "hospitals", and if they've lived this long without one, then they probably don't have any documentation regarding their birth. Not to mention many of the elderly live on SS and paying for the "documentation" to be able to pay for a birth-certificate is a POLL TAX, and that was out-lawed when we had a SCOTUS that actually believed in "Justice for ALL".
LOL@Zora Renee! In the "real" world, you most certainly are asked for ID when purchasing cigarettes or alcohol, and if not, then that business is breaking the law. Also, in the "real" world, u are required to show ID to open a bank account, buy a house, a plane ticket, or as previously mentioned, to gain access to the DNC convention. Having to purchase or obtain something required by law is NOT a poll tax. By that rationale, the gas money i spend, or cab fare, or bus ticket I buy to get to the polling place is also a "poll tax". For all of the reasons that I am REQUIRED to show ID on a daily basis, presenting ID to vote is by far the most important. I can "fake out" the person working at 7-11 in order to buy beer. I shouldn't be able to "fake out" the American people and cast a ballot without proving that I am who I say I am. Without requiring ID to vote, I can cast as many ballots, in as many polling places as my heart desires. Without ID you can never prove who is voting, and where they are voting.
The only time I'm ID'd is at the bank.
Mitt doesn't want to show his "papers" (tax returns) proving he is not a criminal/illegal,, but, by gad, the repubes want us to show our papers...
Speaking of "papers" Luz Cann, can you tell me why President Obama spent over a million dollars to seal any and all records of his time in college? What is in his college transcripts that he doesn't want anyone to see? And why go to such lengths to keep anyone from finding out? Transparency applies to everyone but him I guess. If u have read his book "Dreams from my Father", he goes into detail about how he spent alot of time drinking and smoking pot as he contemplated life. So how does someone like that manage to get into Harvard Law? I guess will never know.
The lawyer defending the Voter ID law, Mr. Knorr, actually said:
“The burden to me is quite minimal,” he said. “Most people can get photo IDs quite easily. We haven’t had any evidence of a single real person who can’t get this.”
The case is being reheard after the ACLU was told that they failed to prove anyone would actually be harmed by this law. The ACLU's appeal counter-charges that "voting is a fundamental right", and therefore the burden lies with the STATE to prove the added requirements are NECESSARY, not for the ACLU to "prove" harm BEFORE the law takes effect.
Nothing to see here...