Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law


#1

A Pennsylvania judge has blocked enforcement of the key section of a voter identification law which the state legislature enacted and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed last March, meaning that the law willnot be in effect for the Nov. 6 election.
Judge Robert Simpson said that even with the streamlined procedures that state officials proposed to make it easier for voters without ID cards to obtain them, “the proposed changes are to occur about five weeks before the general election, and I question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the goal of** liberal **access” to ID cards.

Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law - NBC Politics

There is the key word “liberal access” translation license to commit fraud.

I notice in the local rag, I.D. is no longer required at the polls but if I vote early at the county building I still have to show I.D.


#2

This judge should be impeached for failure to uphold the law.


#3

This is tragic. Legitimate voters will now face the likelihood that the vote they cast will be nullified by a fraudulent vote. Sensible people will wonder - why bother to participate in such a charade?


#4

Caught it on Fox:

They can STILL ask for and ID, but the people are NOT REQUIRED to provide one.

In the big race its going to be Cabbage by a head and 'bammy by a mile…Call it a win for 'bammy who has put the vote in vote often, by anyone anytime!


#5

You’re all wrong. This judge had NO CHOICE in the matter. His ruling PRESERVED the law for eventual implementation. This case was decided weeks ago in the PA SUPREME COURT…which sent the case back to THIS judge with the following instruction:

“This request to enjoin enforcement of the Act of March 14, 2012, P.L. 195, No. 18 (Act 18), returns to me from the Supreme Court for expedited consideration of the following directive:
2
Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.

The facts are that with 4 weeks left till the election…requests for ID’s have been 200 a week…rather than the 10’s thousands there should be. The judge correctly ruled that per the Supremes…there was not enough time or progress in registering those currently without suitable photo ID to insure that many would not be able to vote.
The judge DID keep the law in place and FUTURE PA elections WILL have the ID requirement. I would view this as a victory after a setback. The judge even allows election officials to ask first for picture ID at this election and then secondary ID…though lack of a picture ID will not be disqualifying this time.

**If PA election officials are smart…they will RECORD the numbers of people without picture ID at this election…so that overblown claims of disenfranchisement cannot be made in the future.
**
The judges full explanation of his decision is here: http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/CFBF4323-B964-4846-8179-88D689375C10/0/CMWSuppDetAppPrelInjOrder_100212.pdf

Any fair reading of this case will note that the judge was

  1. Over-ruled by the State Supreme Court
    2.) Took his order from the Supremes seriously and made a fact based decision based on their order.
    3.) Did everything he could to avoid going one smidgen beyond the Supremes order.
    4.) Preserved the law for the future and preserved the right to ASK for picture ID in this election.

Mitt has not a chance here anyway. NEXT time…we’ll have a good ID law in place and 4 years to get the ID’s into the hands of those who don’t have them now.

So there is NO misunderstanding…I FULLY support picture voter ID laws. They DO however need to be implemented in a manner that is fair to all. I think it is fair to say that the Dems strung this one out in court so long that there was no opportunity to get the ID’s done. They won the round…WE won the future.


#6

Your correct, I just hope we still have a “future” after this election…


#7

I find it astounding that the government at various levels can give out food, housing, cell phones, K-12 education, healthcare and even have you buried. It is literally cradle to grave.

And yet the government can’t find a way to give out photo IDs.


#8

[quote=“RightOnLeftCoast, post:7, topic:36400”]
I find it astounding that the government at various levels can give out food, housing, cell phones, K-12 education, healthcare and even have you buried. It is literally cradle to grave.

And yet the government can’t find a way to give out photo IDs.
[/quote]A phrase comes to mind"you can lead a horse to water but you can not make them drink" The fact is that I.D.s can be had sometimes for free but those who complain about having to give them excuse that they have to show I.D.s for many other things even to get into an Obama event. All this is for is to commit fraud. My grandmother never had a driver’s license in her life but one can go to the DMV and get an identity card. Heck I even had cards made for some of the individuals I took care of and we used them when they voted.


#9

Cam:

So there is NO misunderstanding…I FULLY support picture voter ID laws. They DO however need to be implemented in a manner that is fair to all. I think it is fair to say that the Dems strung this one out in court so long that there was no opportunity to get the ID’s done. They won the round…WE won the future.

Exactly.
When I heard that there were only 200/wk applying for I.D.'s compared to the thousands expected, it was easy to see why the judge had no choice but to rule as he did. And it’s not like he could rule any way he wanted to; or tell the S.C. what they could do w/their instructions.
–Much of which was explained in the very articled linked here.

{May not always agree w/you, Cam, but at least you don’t jump to conclusions, spout knee-jerk reactions, and/or say what you think everybody wants to hear. It’s refreshing.}


#10

I think liberals need to move north, and Conservatives need to move South. Let’s just all call it even and part ways as friends. :slight_smile:


#11

Before his decision, he floated an idea that would have been a solution with the photo I.D.: Provisional ballots for those without it until such time as they could verify their legitimacy to vote. It would have been the right solution.


#12

I’m aware of that. Perhpas what I did not make clear is that when I heard the numbers, (200/wk vs. thousands expected), I saw it coming.
I do not blame Judge Simpson; I blame Penn. Supreme Court for tying his hands.
Cabiche?


#13

So what this judge did was to ensure voter fraud was going to happen so that Obama could get reelected–Got it. The naivety of some people defies description.


#14

You need to re-read that section of the decision. The 6 day requirement for picture ID after the election would have contravened the Supremes direction to him. There was never any “until such time” provision and in an election…you have to count the votes in a reasonably quick manner. It would have disenfranchised voters according to the Supreme’s interpretation of the law and legislative intent of “liberal access”.


#15

No, that’s what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvanis did. The judge had no other recourse.