Pennsylvania is defending their voter ID law in court, and they’ve just dealt themselves a serious blow. In a filing, they’ve admitted that there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” as well as that “in person voter fraud is [not] likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.” They’re preparing to disenfranchise 750,000 voters for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Well, not NO reason—those 750,000 folks are liable to vote for Obama. →
Comments are closed.
Well, here’s one example…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QNZ2z2Cr4o
The guy was asked how he dealt with the long line, and he said “I tried to vote a couple of times.” That seems like a reasonable response to a long line—to leave and come back. But even if we’re pretending that he said “I voted a couple of times,” that could mean a) he’s joking b) in his life or c) he cast two votes, one for the president and one for congress. The state of Pennsylvania, in defending their own voter ID law in court, would provide absolutely any evidence of voter fraud that they possibly could. The fact that a guy is being accused (four years ago) of having declared live, on national television, that he’d voted twice, and Pennsylvania is not citing that as an example of voter fraud, is perhaps the clearest evidence that this was not, in fact, a confession of voter fraud.
Really? OK. If that’s what you saw after seeing the CNN guy saying it was “illegal, but that’s OK,” then I guess we will just have to disagree on this one!
Haha. That’s a clown comment, bro!
Huh? Voting twice is not voter fraud?
Sometimes, the best option is to just admit, “Ok, yeah, the other side got this one right.”
In response to CNN reporter comment of long voter lines, “I tried to come back and vote a couple of times”.
Swing and a miss Willie.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania apparently couldn’t come up with a single instance of a poll-worker able to testify that, say, three different people showed up to vote, all trying to pass themselves off as “John Q. Public of 123 Elm Street”? Nobody could cite an instance of voters showing up and identifying themselves as people who were really dead? Nothing? And they want to make it hard for a 90-something-year-old lady to vote? For what? This is a solution in search of a problem.
No, there is a problem Harry. Americans. The Republican Party has become, as Republican strategist Ed Rollins says, “a bunch of old, white,..and fat guys” and the majority of eligible American voters are not.
The word is “disfranchise.”
/prescriptivist
While they isn’t voter fraud aren’t people trouble by large groups of people with no government ID’s? They can’t get legal jobs, they can’t fly, they can’t buy legal firearms, they can’t have bank accounts. Why can’t the government urge people to get ID’s and solve these problem.
I can’t imagine my modern life without using a government ID. If they can make you prove who you are to execise your 2nd admendment rights why not the 15th.
I saw a youtube video that said people vote twice. We NEED legislation to prevent this! Good thing the conservatives are on the job! Let’s pat them on the back and say “thanks” for getting this right! Oh nevermind, they’ll just pat themselves on the back for us.
“I saw a youtube video that said people vote twice.”
No, you saw a You Tube video showing a polling place with unacceptably long lines, where a voter said that he had come to the polling place earlier, but had to leave before he could vote. He came back later when he had more time to wait. Even if a single voter had claimed to have voted twice (which this voter did NOT do), there is absolutely no evidence that he or anyone else actually did. In short, the state of Pennsylvania possesses no compelling justification to enact a voter ID law that nakedly targets voters of a party that does not possess a majority in the state’s legislature.
The U.S. Constitution expressly grants Congress the right to dictate the “time, place, and manner” in state elections involving Federal candidates. Congress has long been inclined to leave such matters to the states, but Madison believed that Congress needed this case in order to protect political minorities from injury at the hands of majorities in state legislatures. It is among the continuing failures of Congress that it has failed to intervene in order to secure just and fair elections.