Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

@firefly,

True the PA GOP can not be as frank as this law happen to be but it have the same purpose IE taking away the rights of citizenship in the PA case from the poor lower class citizens mainly blacks not the Jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nurmlaw4.html

1. A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He has no right to vote in political affairs and he cannot occupy public office.

2. Jewish officials will retire as of December 31, 1935. If these officials served at the front in the world war, either for Germany or her allies, they will receive in full, until they reach the age limit, the pension to which they were entitled according to the salary they last received; they will, however, not advance in seniority. After reaching the age limit, their pensions will be calculated anew, according to the salary last received, on the basis of which their pension was computed.

3. The affairs of religious organizations will not be affected.

4. The conditions of service of teachers in Jewish public schools remain unchanged until new regulations for the Jewish school systems are issued.

Article

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

If these voter ID laws cannot withstand legal challenges, they will be struck down. That's what the courts are for.

The same courts who once rule that blacks can not be citizens?

Yes courts are an important barrier to this nonsense but it surely is not a perfect one or the only one.

Where is Al Sharpton when you need him?

Hell for that matter where is Al in dealing with the fact that over 30 percents of all black males in the state of Florida can not vote and the GOP as soon as it got into power make it a great deal harder for those men to regain their rights to vote.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Yes courts are an important barrier to this nonsense but it surely is not a perfect one or the only one.

You've discounted the validity and right of the people to duly elect representatives who propose and pass laws.

And, by the way, weren't the people who you feel would allegedly be disenfranchised by the Pennsylvania voter ID law entitled to vote in the past elections that put these Republicans into office?

Now you discount the validity of the courts to rule on the legality of such laws.

What's your solution--get out the guns?

Your hyped-up rhetoric substitutes paranoid hysteria for a reasoned appraisal of the situation.

They have concluded the hearings on the challenge to the Pennsylvania law--and the legal challenge is based on the provisions of the state Constitution-- and the judge is expected to rule by August 13th. Regardless of how that judge rules, the decision is likely to be appealed.

It is hard to see how the legal issues could be resolved in time for this law to be in effect before election day, or how sufficient state preparedness would be in place to insure that all voters would be accurately advised of the necessary voter ID requirements and have sufficient time to acquire them.

I think that everything suggests that implementation of this law will be blocked.

And if people don't like the proposals, like this one, that the current legislature comes up with, they better get to the polls in November and vote these people out of office.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You've discounted the validity and right of the people to duly elect representatives who propose and pass laws

The issue for Photo ID's for voting WAS NEVER an issue in the 2010 legislative elections. It just appeared in 2012 as the GOP "gang of seven" was being winnowed and the" left- standing- guy" was Romney. (GOP felt that they really needed to drive some house rules so Romney could at least score more evenly) . This was stated open;y by several GOP committeechairs (GOP rules the House and Senate in Pa as well as the governorship).

Quote:

It is hard to see how the legal issues could be resolved in time for this law to be in effect before election day,

We agree on that
point entirely. Since this issue was NEVER a gleam in the eye of the platform committees in the last Legislative election cycle, it appears somewhat of a coincidence that the laws timing and the appearance of the GOP candidate were a few week aprt in 2012.

PA has a reputation fpr taking for bloody ever to enact emergency legislation (Last year we just decided to extend the tax based upon the Johnstown Flood , for a few more years).
So how'n a hell did these guys shove this legislation so quickly down our throts without hearings or any amount of input from others. When it was rolled out, the AARP and the minority public was universally against it

2 Replies

@farmerman,

firefly also doesn't seem to realize that congress, elected by the people, has a 12% approval rating. I think these facts are too difficult for his brain to register.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

we are disagreeing on a subject that is among the several dozen issues that polarize the US. It isnt a matter of "our side" being smarter, its an issue of how each side reads the law.
Were I a GOP, I too would be arguing that this law is righteous and true. As it is, I only see subterfuge and attempts by the legislature and the GOP governor to dienfranchise the voting public in a state with one of the highest number of AARP types in the country.

Firefly has alluded to a fact that its gonna be damn difficult to admin this law in tim for this cycle of voting. That alone should negate it IMHO.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The partisan motivations for this law are clear, but that's not the issue on whether this law will stand or fail. Either the law can withstand legal challenges or it can't.

Political parties will always try to use their influence to their own advantage, there is nothing new about that. The question is whether they are doing it lawfully in this instance. At the hearings, the state did not argue necessity for the law based on previous evidence of voter fraud, their contention was simply that they have the legitimate authority to require and pass such a law, and the opposition contended otherwise based on the state constitution.

In this instance, they tried to rush through a law, for partisan reasons, that the state seems nowhere ready to implement and which could result in complete chaos on election day. It's a monumental example of bad government.

Maybe this issue will help to get those people voted out of office--it should.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

To argue any law that it's "righteous and true" against the premise that it's being established to disenfranchise voters is against the US Constitution.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

You've discounted the validity and right of the people to duly elect representatives who propose and pass laws.

You damn right I do when those laws are design to take away basic rights of citizenship from others who are in every way are entitle to them.

The majority have no moral rights to make slaves of the minority and hopefully in this case no legal rights either.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

To argue any law that it's "righteous and true" against the premise that it's being established to disenfranchise voters is against the US Constitution.

It's not really the U.S. Constitution that is the determining factor in this situation--it's the Pennsylvania state constitution.

And it would be difficult to legally prove that the Pennsylvania law was established specifically to disenfranchise a particular group of voters.

The situation in Pennsylvania is a liitle different than the legal issues in other states with voter ID laws--particularly the Southern states.

Quote:

This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin....Joining us to talk more about this is Nathan Persily. He is a professor of law and political science at the Columbia University School of Law...

PERSILY: That's what the DOJ is investigating. To what extent is there a disparate racial impact, to use the civil rights language here, from a law like this? And in some states we find that there is. I want to caution people, though, on assuming that there's going to be widespread disenfranchisement, that you're going to have hundreds of thousands of people who are not going to be able to vote.

A lot of what's going to happen here is going to depend on how it's enforced in the polling place and as I said before, the consequence of coming to vote without a photo I.D. is that you're supposed to be given a provisional ballot, a ballot that will be counted if you can sort of cure the illegal defect later. And so we shouldn't expect that there's going to be a huge impact on turnout but it could cause some real conflict at the polls between poll workers and voters....

MARTIN: Professor Persily, important to point out that Pennsylvania's law is being challenged at the state level. On what grounds?

PERSILY: Well, the state constitution in Pennsylvania has a voting rights provision so that the right to vote is protected explicitly in the Pennsylvania constitution. The reason they're bringing this in state court instead of federal court is because the U.S. Supreme Court, about five years ago, upheld a voter I.D. law in Indiana and they said that, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, that voting I.D. laws - photo I.D. laws, in fact - could be constitutional.

And so, if you're a clever lawyer, you say, well, if I'm not likely to win under the federal Constitution, I'll go and argue under the state Constitution, thinking that maybe the state courts might be more favorable. And so that's what they're arguing, that this is a burden that breaks the state constitutional guarantee of the right to vote.

MARTIN: One of the reasons that this particular case stands out, and I think has come to the attention of people looking at this nationally, is that Pennsylvania is not one of the states that has to review its voting mechanisms in advance with the federal government, as a number of Southern states do, owing to a record of past discrimination.

And is that a point in their favor? Is their argument that, you know, we don't have a history of discrimination, therefore we shouldn't be subjected to this kind of scrutiny. Do you see what I'm saying?

PERSILY: Yes. Well, this makes it more likely that they're going to win in court. The Texas case, which is currently before the three judge special court in Washington, D.C., has a different posture because, in Texas, Texas has to prove that its voter I.D. law will not disadvantage minorities. So the burden is on them to show that there is no racially disparate impact, whereas here, the burden is on the plaintiffs - on the ACLU - to say it is, in fact, going to have a racially disparate impact.

And, while that legal difference might seem like standing angels on a head of a pin, it really can make all the difference in the world because if the state of Texas says, look, no one has proven that this has a racially disparate impact, that's not enough. And that looks like what's going to happen in Texas where the court is going to strike down that law.

In Pennsylvania, it's more difficult. The racial argument there is going to require, if you're making a constitutional argument, that they were intentionally trying to go after racial minorities and under section two of the Voting Rights Act it's still going to be difficult because you have to really know who's going to end up voting and not being able to vote on election day because of this.

MARTIN: Nathan Persily is professor law and political science at Columbia Law School and he was kind enough to join us from our bureau in New York.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/30/157594371/will-penn-i-d-law-actually-keep-voters-away

The issues, specifically the legal issues, with these voter ID laws differs from state to state.

The more compelling argument in the case of Pennsylvania might be the lack of preparedness on the part of the state to implement this law before election day. And that lack of preparedness alone could serve to disenfranchise voters or wind up needlessly disenfranchising voters. And that argument could serve to block implementation of the law.

Judging by the testimony given at the recently concluded hearings on this law, the state is nowhere near ready to deal with properly educating the public regarding the law, or handling an increased influx at DOT offices, or training poll workers, or getting voter photo ID cards in the hands of all those who might need them, etc.. If they don't have all the necessary mechanisms in place to implement the law--so that voters aren't disenfranchised by the inefficiency of the state--the implementation of the law should be blocked.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It's not really the U.S. Constitution that is the determining factor in this situation--it's the Pennsylvania state constitution.

And it would be difficult to legally prove that the Pennsylvania law was established specifically to disenfranchise a particular group of voters.

The US constitution does not allow states to take away the state citizenship and in fact federal citizenship of the poor.

Intend second would not be hard too prove given some statements make by lawmakers and is beside the point if the results of the law in question are that citizenship rights are in fact taken away from a group that have ever rights to them.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And it would be difficult to legally prove that the Pennsylvania law

LOL here is some of your proof of the intend of this law.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The US constitution does not allow states to take away the state citizenship and in fact federal citizenship of the poor

Oh, stop being overly dramatic and paranoid. No one is having their citizenship--or their right to vote--being taken away.

Quote:

Intend second would not be hard too prove given some statements make by lawmakers

The intend, which was apparently to try to whittle down Democratic votes, does not translate into clear racial discrimination.

You don't understand the legal issues involved.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Yes, it is; it's taking away their Constitutional rights as citizens of this country; to vote.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Yes, it is; it's taking away their Constitutional rights as citizens of this country; to vote.

No it doesn't take away the right to vote. It simply requires proof of voter identity at the polls.

And, if the state is willing to supply free voter ID cards, without the requirement of a birth certificate, to those who cannot otherwise obtain acceptable ID, and if they are willing to supply provisional ballots to those who appear at the polls without ID, how does this translate into people losing the right to vote?

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that simply requiring a photo ID in order to vote does not violate Constitutional voting rights.

That's why you have to look at the legal arguments put forth in this particular case--where they were trying to prove that people in this particular state would encounter obstacles to voting under this particular law. And it remains to be seen whether that legal argument will be successful.

There is nothing wrong with requiring proof of identity at the polls--as long as you can insure that all registered voters will have access to that form of ID by election day. The question is, has Pennsylvania done that?

I don't think Pennsylvania is prepared to handle proper implementation of this law by election day, and I think the hearings made that clear.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I can not but question why Firefly would think that anyone who is disfranchise in such a manner would feel any obligation to obey the laws he no longer had a voice in or loyalty to the government that allowed it to occur.

The government would need to try to rule by fear and force alone like any third world dictatorship at least when dealing with those who no longer are part of the political process.

Not a comfortable society to live in for anyone including the so call majority.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Why do you have to have a ID to vote? Every voter must register to vote; that should be enough because a voter must prove residency and must sign to verify who they are. What else is needed? It's not about fraud, because that's already been proven to be wrong.

Why add another step in the voting process when it's not required? What's the purpose for it?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

No one is having their citizenship--or their right to vote--being taken away.

Quote:

Surely they are that is the intend of the PA law and other such laws to block as many blacks and latins and others poor who vote overwhelming for democrats from voting it hardly a secret from anyone.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What's the purpose for it?

To help improve the integrity of the voting process.

That's the same reason they have changed the types of machines used for voting in many places.

And, trying to improve the integrity of the voting process, has already been established as a legally valid reason for the state to require voter ID.

At least 30 states now require some form of voter ID at the polls. All surveys find that a majority of people support the idea of requiring some voter ID at the polls.

So the general issue of voter ID, which most people favor, is really quite separate from the particular problems and issues posed by the Pennsylvania law in question.

What's the point of your asking the same questions over and over again?

The situation with the Pennsylvania voter photo ID law will be resolved one way or the other in the courts. Either it's in conflict with the Pennsylvania state constitution or it isn't--and that legal issue has yet to be resolved.

The law has been formally challenged. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts.

1 Reply

@firefly,

The so-called "integrity" is already established with the application process.
Adding another step does not improve it.

BTW, how many birth certificates do you have? Do you need another ID to prove who you are?

Only birthers dream up ideas about who one is or isn't according to "their" own interpretation. It takes too much imagination to screw things up like the conservatives.

2 Replies

Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know