Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

Either the voter ID laws are legal, and consistent with other federal voting rights laws, and the U.S. Constitution, and the state Constitutions, or they aren't. And that's the battleground on which these laws should be argued.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that there is no need for a voter photo ID card in Pennsylvania?

Quote:

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that there is no need for a voter photo ID card in Pennsylvania?

The majority of people in that state think there is a need for such voter ID, and they support the law. Why are you ignoring that fact?

this whole thing reeks of simple minded republican shenanigans...

The majority of people often think all sorts of stupid ****, that doesn't make them right in any way.

The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.

In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny...

But, as Justice Stevens noted, there have been flagrant examples of voter fraud in American history. He cited the 1868 New York City elections, in which a local tough who worked for Tammany’s William (Boss) Tweed explained why he liked voters to have whiskers: “When you’ve voted ’em with their whiskers on, you take ’em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote ’em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote ’em a third time with the mustache. If that ain’t enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote ’em plain face.”

In 2004, Justice Stevens noted in a footnote, the hotly contested gubernatorial election in Washington State produced an investigation that turned up 19 “ghost voters” and at least one confirmed instance of voter fraud. And while Justice Stevens did not mention the elections in the career of Lyndon B. Johnson, biographers of the late president have suggested that he won at least one election in Texas in the 1940’s through ballot box-stuffing — and lost at least one the same way.

On the other hand, there is no dispute that some voting laws enacted decades ago, especially in the South, were not intended to prevent fraud but rather to keep blacks from voting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

Quote:

The majority of people often think all sorts of stupid ****, that doesn't make them right in any way.

But that's democracy.

We're enacting laws in 2012 to combat voter fraud that happened in 1868?

In 2004, Justice Stevens noted in a footnote, the hotly contested gubernatorial election in Washington State produced an investigation that turned up 19 “ghost voters”

Fortunately, we have some checks and balances in order to avoid a tyranny of majority.

@firefly,
That's some really sloppy reasoning. "One way of accomplishing that" is an extremely low standard to meet.

It is certainly not "a good way of accomplishing that."

How would you like to confirm the identity of the person who appears at the polls?

prohibiting valid citizen behavior are immoral and unnecessary.

Where has it been clearly established that these laws prohibited, or will prohibit, citizens from voting?

Um, this is so obvious, it's hard to believe it's a serious question at all. The ENTIRE POINT of these laws - and their enactment - is to prevent citizens from voting.

Quote:

Um, this is so obvious, it's hard to believe it's a serious question at all. The ENTIRE POINT of these laws - and their enactment - is to prevent citizens from voting.

Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's hard to argue that confirming the identity of the voter at the polls does not help to improve the integrity of the voting process.