OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:11 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I can't decide if you're a brilliant satirist, or a complete idiot.
Is it better for an idiot to be complete or incomplete ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:15 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I have no idea of what youre speaking so Im watching how the dis-assembly of this law can take place by political attrition.
Will it disenfranchise?-

The GOP has admitted so by saying (out loud) that the law will help to elect Romeny in Pa

Will it be difficult to get in place?-

Yep, the SUpreme court of PA has speculated on same.

WHOS WHINING???
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 02:29 pm
@farmerman,
No news, but if it doesnt get settled by Oct 10, Ive been told that any law concerning voting cannot be put into effect if it post ates the closing date of registration for that election.
Seems logical.
Let em fight it out for the 2016 election.


PS, In Pa, the voter fraud party is definately the GOP. In 2004 they tried to enact ceratin county restrictions in counties of the western Pa tier.

In 2008, the GOP county councils of Chester and Delaware counties unilaterally moved polling places at the lastminute in order to stymie black kids who were voting for the firt time at Lincoln U and Cheney STate (both HBC's). These involved post election law suits and some rapid disassembly of Boards of Elections

Wasnt it Stalin who said

"I dont want to control the votes, I want to control those who count the votes"
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 07:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Is it better for an idiot to be complete or incomplete ?


Once in a blue moon you are an incomplete idiot, Dave, but you are always an idiot.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 09:40 am
@farmerman,
Its more and more looking like the "provisional ballot" idea will be used to skirt by this election, cause th judges are looking at many "half a loaf" options. We will see how deep disenfranchisement cxan go by the amount of provisionals counted (This may be the "Hanging Chad" of the decade.

The decision from Justice Simpson may be dropped on us this week but is hard deadlined for next Tuesday (the 9th)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 05:29 pm
@farmerman,
now the news is saying that judge Simpson will have his mind made up this week (Oct 2). Will he uphold most of the law but allow provisional ballots without photo ID??
TUNE IN TOMORROW
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 06:17 pm
@farmerman,
I will. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
October 2, 2012
Judge Halts Pa.'s Tough New Voter ID Requirement
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania's divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect before Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

Simpson ordered the state not to enforce the photo ID requirement in this year's presidential election but will allow it to go into full effect next year.

One lawyer for the plaintiffs said it appeared to be a "win." Election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can vote on a regular voting machine in the polling place and would not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials after the election.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/10/02/us/ap-us-voter-id-pennsylvania.html?hpw&_r=0
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:40 am
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57524290/judge-halts-pa.s-strict-new-voter-id-law/


Judge halts Pa.'s strict new voter ID law
3Comments

HARRISBURG, Pa. A judge postponed Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election.


The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court. The law could go into full effect next year, under Simpson's ruling.


However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.


His ruling came after listening to two days of testimony about the state's eleventh-hour efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID. He also heard about long lines and ill-informed clerks at driver's license centers and identification requirements that made it hard for some registered voters to get a state-issued photo ID.


The 6-month-old law — now among the nation's toughest — has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights and become a high-profile political issue in the contest between President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, for Pennsylvania's prized 20 electoral votes.



Fraud proof scarce in two voter ID cases Judge signals Pa. voter ID law may be blocked Voter registration problems widening in Florida Voter registration fraud claims singe GOP

Pennsylvania, traditionally considered one of the most valuable a presidential swing states, is showing a persistent lead for President Barack Obama in independent polls. As a result, the state has been virtually empty of presidential TV ads and off the candidates' beaten paths to more contested states in recent weeks.


Pollsters say an identification requirement could mean that fewer people end up voting and, in the past, lower turnouts have benefited Republicans in Pennsylvania. But Democrats have used their opposition to the law as a rallying cry, turning it into a valuable tool to motivate volunteers and campaign contributions while other opponents of the law, including labor unions, good government groups, the NAACP, AARP and the League of Women Voters, hold voter education drives and protest rallies.


The voter ID law was a signature accomplishment of Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature and its Republican governor, Tom Corbett. Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, justified it as a bulwark against any potential election fraud.


But Democrats objected furiously, accusing Republicans of using old-fashioned Jim Crow tactics to steal the White House from Obama by making it harder for young adults, the poor, minorities and the disabled to vote.


Protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives ensued, as the law's opponents — including the AARP, the NAACP and labor unions — began collecting stories of people who had no valid photo ID and had encountered stiff barriers in their efforts to get one from state driver's license centers.


It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."


The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in 2008, and Georgia's top court upheld that state's voter ID law. But a federal panel struck down Texas' voter ID law, and the state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire's voter ID law earlier this year.


The plaintiffs — a group of registered voters, plus the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — had sought to block the law from taking effect in this year's election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.


The constitutionality of the law was not a question before Simpson.


Rather, the state Supreme Court had ordered him to stop the law if he thought anyone eligible would be unable to cast a ballot because of it or if he found the state had not complied with the law's promise of providing liberal access to a photo ID that voters were required to carry on Election Day.


Las week, the Corbett administration overhauled the process for getting a voting-only ID card — an admission that the state had not met the Supreme Court's test for the whether the law should stand.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

3Comments
/ 97Shares / 60Tweets / Stumble
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:56 am
@BillRM,
beat me to it Bill. I was listening to talk radio (with a GOP bent of course). Wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then I turned to PBS where they interviewed both sides and as it turned out in the recent suit

The plaintiffs found that in at least 30 cases, the issuing agency (PennDOT) was screwing up rolyally and people were not given id cards after several trips to the motor/photo center

Plaintiffs also had, in "discovery" not been presented with any evidence of actual identity fraud. There were 8 instances in the commonwealth of voter fraud in the last 10 years and these were either
a. initial registration issues

b. absentee ballot fraud

Well, it doesnt stop there because, the Commonwealth MAY decide to appeal Judge Simpson and send it back to the PA Supreme Court.

If the Commonwealth does appeal, I think they will look like a bunch of conniving ninnies

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:57 am
@farmerman,
Pretty much how I figured it would turn out.

Cycloptichorn
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 10:00 am
@Cycloptichorn,
then your waay more clairvoyant than I. I figured Ron Castille to pile up points for the plaintiffs but not the way the Supreme Court did it. Then to readress the entire issue as a "by the way", Judge Simpson crawled out of his own hole. Funny People these humans.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 10:01 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Good oh! I also saw it on Yahoo News.

Quote:
Pennsylvania Judge Puts Voter ID Law on Hold for Election
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: October 2, 2012 29 Comments

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday delayed full implementation of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month’s election, saying that the authorities had not done enough to ensure that potential voters had access to the new documents.


I would think that the majority of those who were being disenfranchised to vote will now go to the polls and vote Obama in response to the GOP's tactics.

I'm waiting to see how big a spread there will be on November 6.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 11:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
I wonder if we will see more of David postings now concerning how his side had won and we was just whining over the matter.

Off hand in a republic-democracy I can not think of a greater sin then trying to get into power by interfering with a block of legal voters from casting their votes and is no more a moral deed then taking over the government by force of arms.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 12:05 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The plaintiffs found that in at least 30 cases, the issuing agency (PennDOT) was screwing up rolyally and people were not given id cards after several trips to the motor/photo center


There's a lesson in there. If you are required to implement a program you don't like, turn it over to department of motor vehicles. If they can't outright screw it up, they'll shut down one window and send everyone there to the back of another nonfunctioning line.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 12:05 pm
@BillRM,
I agree; how and why conservatives in high places did not speak out against this crime is a mystery of insurmountable proportions. They are willing to "cheat" to win elections. What's next? Guns?

We now know they lack ethics or morals. This is a "christian" country?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:13 pm
Great news for the dead in Pennsylvania who would otherwise have been disenfranchised.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Great news for the dead in Pennsylvania who would otherwise have been disenfranchised.


Being more then a little dishonest by that comment given that the government of PA could not come up with one repeat one case of in person fraud happening over the years.

It is great news however for ten of thousands of legal and very must alive voters who would had been lock out from voting and bad news for the GOP that wish them blocked from voting.

One thing I had taken note of GOP supporters tend not to have a sense of shame over any actions that might get them back into power.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 08:41 pm
@BillRM,
Who was that who said PA is a sure win for Romney? Mr. Green Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 09:38 pm
@BillRM,
Dead voters are apparently some kind of Texas specialty.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-19/texas-judge-bars-state-from-ordering-country-voter-purges

Quote:
Texas officials were temporarily barred by a state judge from ordering county election officials to purge presumably dead voters from registration rolls because the initiative may violate the election code.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/26/2024 at 05:41:00