Over a year ago, Governor Corbett signed the into law a requirement that voters present photo identification. The measurement has faced a variety of obstacles, including two injunctions and a lawsuit.
In the meantime, the rule has gotten immense attention and the state has made it progressively easier to obtain ID.
A ruling on the constitutionality of the law has once again been postponed with Commonwealth Court hearings to begin on July 15th. The Pa. Supreme Court will then review the decision made by Judge Robert Simpson in time for the November election.
Proponents of the law say that it will help to prevent prevent voter fraud while opponents say that is will only disenfranchise elderly, sick, and urban voters. The question of ‘liberal access,’ posed by civil rights organizations was the impetus for law’s review since votes would have be hard pressed to obtain ID before last November’s election.
More than a year after being signed into law, the Pa. Voter ID requirement is still on hold. Should the Pa. Supreme Court uphold the law as constitutional or strike it down?
- Strike it down. The law was intended to disenfranchise voters; electoral fraud is not an issue. (64%)
- Uphold the law. It’s a reasonable measure of protection, and voters have had sufficient time to obtain ID so access is no longer a question. (36%)
Loading ...
Loading ...
12 Responses
The crude and coarse post by Bono makes it easy to identify the low-information voters who drink the Progressives’ KoolAid.
Not only should there be mandatory voter ID we should demand the same of those who vote to determine how our state/country will be run as we do for those who drive on our roads; i.e., a written test and proof they can read, write, and understand the mechanics inside the voting booth.
Poll after poll shows that a 2/3rd majority supports the Voter ID law. The attempt to smear it has been weak and groundless. There just is no good reason not to use an ID for such an important transaction, in good faith.
Tfhe reason you don’t hear too much about voter fraud is the fact that the Republican Party is prohibited from contesting voter fraud by a 1981 consent decree which prohibits targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting. So if you are a minority member you can vote as often as you please in any election, or stuff the ballet boxes, or screw with the software of voting machines and the Republicans are not allowed to object. What a country!
Cliff, we’re all awaiting the presentation of your evidence. Until then, grow up and get over your racist fantasies.
Funny, just looked up the word associated with the meaning, “a small syringe having detachable nozzles for fluid injections used chiefly for vaginal lavage and enemas” and, lo and behold, whose picture do you think was vividly displayed next to it? Would you believe, Cliff W??? A true Dbag indeed.
Bucks, the lawsuit is a state constitutional challenge, not a federal challenge. The federal constitution provides a floor for protecting our rights, but the state constitutions can make those rights (and others) more robust.
Keep in mind that this law was introduced by the demented Metcalfe at the behest of ALEC and the Koch Brothers backed Americans for Prosperity. @CliffW shows a lack of intelligence and an extreme bigot just like his hero Daryl.
As a long time poll worker, I can prove beyond a shadow of the black helicopters, that the constitutionally ineligible white house corrupt trespasser only “won the election”, because of the massive fraud.
And now America is going to Hell, with that non-evolved orangutan at the helm.
I long for the day when that A-Hole is convicted of High Treason against the US. I have even offered to provide the 92 feet of rope and the associated tall oak tree.
Voter ID must be applied, and enforced, as the law of the land.
Was there election fraud during the past two elections (April primary and November general)? If not, then strike it down. Clearly unnecessary (as the State stipulated to in earlier court case). This was a terrible politically motivated (Turzai) action on the part of Republicans.
I vote for constitutional consistency. Either require IDs for buying guns and voting, or neither.
The poll is too simplistic. The Crawford v Indiana US Supreme Court decision allowed for voter id and that is the supreme law of the land. PA’s version is the worst of the bunch. If it is tweaked it could easily be found to be constitutional