Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Judge rules against voting rights in Pennsylvania


umbertino
 Share

Recommended Posts

by: John Wojcik

August 16 2012

In a defeat for voting rights advocates, Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the state's right-wing voter ID law, which prevents 750,000 voters from casting ballots next November.

Though the right-wing backers of the voter ID law were not able to cite even one case of voter impersonation in Pennsylvania, the judge said he "didn't rule on the full merits of the case," but limited his considerations to "whether it was a proper exercise of the legislature's authority."

Originally, Republicans had claimed that the motivation for their voter ID law was the desire to prevent election fraud.

Their main argument before the judge, however, was that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election laws when they chose to require voters to show "widely available" forms of photo ID.

The AFL-CIO issued a statement condemning the ruling. "It's crystal clear who is behind these and why they want them passed," the federation said. "The Republican Majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives illustrated that so directly - saying that the voter ID law 'is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.'"

The AFL-CIO said the laws are being pushed "for partisan reasons to disenfranchise particular groups of voters. They are cynical and wrong, and they undermine our democracy."

According to a study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, one in ten eligible voters - overwhelmingly the elderly, minorities, students, and new citizens - lack a government-issued photo ID and could be disenfranchised under these new voter suppression laws.

Given this, the federation said, "The judge's ruling that disenfranchisement in Pennsylvania is neither 'immediate' or 'inevitable' defies reality. The ruling must be reversed on appeal."

Voting rights advocates plan to appeal the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which will likely issue its own ruling before the November election. There is currently an even 3-3 split between Democrats and Republicans on the court, the 7th member, Republican Joan Orie Melvin, is under suspension because of a corruption scandal.

Since Simpson ruled to uphold the law, Democrats will need one crossover vote to win a majority and strike down the law. Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a moderate Republican, is considered as likely to cross over and side with Democrats.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/judge-rules-against-voting-rights-in-pennsylvania/

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge rules against voting rights in Pennsylvania :rolleyes:

Thats a funny headline, but misleading....The judge ruled in favor

of maintaining that elections are fair (everyone show ID) and eliminated

some of the cheating that happens all the time. one more State down,

18 left to go.

Another win for the good guys!!! :D We have to RV soon, the news just keeps getting better and better this week.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding....I keep meaning to ask, when does your State vote on ID's?

I think on the same stinking ballot as the general so it won't make a difference this go round anyway. However we don't have a lot of illegals here as they can't handle the winters LOL, Now if we could just get rid of those pesky Canadian illegals..J/K! :lol: I think the marriage law is on at the same time as well.

The House and Senate, with Republicans supplying all the "yes" votes, gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show a photo ID, create a new system of "provisional" balloting and end election day "vouching" for voters without proof of residence. It passed the House on a 72-57 vote shortly after midnight and was approved by the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a 35-29 vote.

The decision puts Minnesota squarely in the center of a national debate over election security vs. ballot access. Five states have strict photo ID requirements in law. Wisconsin and several other states are battling the issue in court or in their legislatures. Minnesota now joins Mississippi and Missouri as states that have sought to impose the changes via constitutional amendments. Minnesota's amendment will likely face court challenges of its own before it goes to voters.

"We will now turn this over to the people of Minnesota, and they will ultimately decide this issue," the Senate sponsor, Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, said as the three-hour Senate debate wrapped up. The photo ID amendment will join another emotional topic, the proposed amendment to ban *** marriage, on the general election ballot Nov. 6.

Yep it is.

Edited by DiveDeepSix
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cris, I have to agree with you on the misleading headlines.

That's how the media and journalist catch their audiences by their twisted headings. <_<

Umbertino I have to say, you are keeping the members on their toes. It's nice to know what the other side is thinking on certain issues. But its double nice when one can challenge it and be positive and sway me to think otherwise. ;)

Sorry Umbertino no swaying yet in your direction. :)

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think on the same stinking ballot as the general so it won't make a difference this go round anyway. However we don't have a lot of illegals here as they can't handle the winters LOL, Now if we could just get rid of those pesky Canadian illegals..J/K! :lol: I think the marriage law is on at the same time as well.

The House and Senate, with Republicans supplying all the "yes" votes, gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show a photo ID, create a new system of "provisional" balloting and end election day "vouching" for voters without proof of residence. It passed the House on a 72-57 vote shortly after midnight and was approved by the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a 35-29 vote.

The decision puts Minnesota squarely in the center of a national debate over election security vs. ballot access. Five states have strict photo ID requirements in law. Wisconsin and several other states are battling the issue in court or in their legislatures. Minnesota now joins Mississippi and Missouri as states that have sought to impose the changes via constitutional amendments. Minnesota's amendment will likely face court challenges of its own before it goes to voters.

"We will now turn this over to the people of Minnesota, and they will ultimately decide this issue," the Senate sponsor, Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, said as the three-hour Senate debate wrapped up. The photo ID amendment will join another emotional topic, the proposed amendment to ban *** marriage, on the general election ballot Nov. 6.

Yep it is.

Good luck buddy....its a good year for those

measures to be on your ballot....Conservatives are

ready to go....I saw another poll today, Romney/Ryan are

ahead in every swing State. (which I knew) the MSM is

now finally showing the truth.

Cris, I have to agree with you on the misleading headlines.

That's how the media and journalist catch their audiences by their twisted headings. <_<

Umbertino I have to say, you are keeping the members on their toes. It's nice to know what the other side is thinking on certain issues. But its double nice when one can challenge it and be positive and sway me to think otherwise. ;)

Sorry Umbertino no swaying yet in your direction. :)

Thanks pattyangel :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck buddy....its a good year for those

measures to be on your ballot....Conservatives are

ready to go....I saw another poll today, Romney/Ryan are

ahead in every swing State. (which I knew) the MSM is

now finally showing the truth.

Is it still true if it swings the other direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it still true if it swings the other direction?

It depends...Almost all of the polls are overly Democrat weighted,

anywhere from 7% to 11%. So if you see a survey that shows O'blah

up by at least 11% it may be an indicator that he's ahead.

Another thing is the sample, if its too small the spread can go 5% or

more.....also, the type of voter is a huge factor. A registered voter poll

is unreliable because only half of registered people actually vote.

A survey of just Americans is wildly inaccurate, for the same reasons.

So, with all that said, if a poll shows the 2 of them anywhere close, say

within 5 points, thats a clear win for Romney.

Todays polls, which use some of those factors listed above, have Romney

up 1 point, 2 points, & in another 3 points in these swing States.

Thats a clear landslide for Romney.

All of these surveys, if you dig a little, show how they are set up, in

terms of the format used.

In the end, the only real, trustworthy polls are of likely voters, equally

weighted for Dem's, Rep's, & ind's......Those are showing an easy

Republican win.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends...Almost all of the polls are overly Democrat weighted,

anywhere from 7% to 11%. So if you see a survey that shows O'blah

up by at least 11% it may be an indicator that he's ahead.

Another thing is the sample, if its too small the spread can go 5% or

more.....also, the type of voter is a huge factor. A registered voter poll

is unreliable because only half of registered people actually vote.

A survey of just Americans is wildly inaccurate, for the same reasons.

So, with all that said, if a poll shows the 2 of them anywhere close, say

within 5 points, thats a clear win for Romney.

Todays polls, which use some of those factors listed above, have Romney

up 1 point, 2 points, & in another 3 points in these swing States.

Thats a clear landslide for Romney.

All of these surveys, if you dig a little, show how they are set up, in

terms of the format used.

In the end, the only real, trustworthy polls are of likely voters, equally

weighted for Dem's, Rep's, & ind's......Those are showing an easy

Republican win.

Thanks.

Polls are only as good as the polling samplings. Do you have any idea where the 7 to 11% come from? I'm not sure of your numbers, but what jumps out to me is independents are normally around the 7% to 10% and Blacks weight in around 11%.

Large percentage of undecided voters normally go to the challenger. On the other hand, incumbents are more likely to win.

True polling is with actual voters on election day. It's the folks that dislike a candidate enough to block a win. About 73% of independents oppose Obamacare, so about 27% of independents may lean toward Obama already. He'll need another 25% during campaigning to get half.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Polls are only as good as the polling samplings. Do you have any idea where the 7 to 11% come from? I'm not sure of your numbers, but what jumps out to me is independents are normally around the 7% to 10% and Blacks weight in around 11%.

Large percentage of undecided voters normally go to the challenger. On the other hand, incumbents are more likely to win.

True polling is with actual voters on election day. It's the folks that dislike a candidate enough to block a win. About 73% of independents oppose Obamacare, so about 27% of independents may lean toward Obama already. He'll need another 25% during campaigning to get half.

I just did a search, what Im seeing from rasmussen June 2012, is 35.4% Rep.

34% Dem....and 30.5% unaffiliated.....Thats just about an even split.

The 7% to 11% weighting is something I've seen in multiple surveys

Here's a good one that explains the 9% weighting in a recent Florida poll

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/does_nytcbs_poll_mean_shenanigans_for_the_sunshine_state.html

Here's another article, from Morris, a guy that I really respect

http://www.dickmorris.com/dont-believe-poll-propaganda/

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get one thing clear; showing an ID to vote does not keep anyone from voting. They have not shown how in any manner that it keeps anyone from voting. What it might do is keep dogs, pets, dead people and inmates from voting.

I totally agree with you desimo. I work with the elderly, minorities, the poor, the ugly, students, and addicts and everyone of them has a picture ID and if they didn't have one then it would take me about one hour to get them one as long as it is during a weekday and open hours (legally of course). They can't drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes, or cash their checks, without the proper ID (the list could go on for several pages). Only an uninformed fool would say that voters are disenfranchised if they have to have an ID! As desimo so eloquently puts it "showing an ID to vote does not keep anyone from voting". It only helps stop the fraud.

Now what it is about this that some people can't understand?? Or maybe the question should be "Now, for what reason would some people make up lame excuses to not require voters show their ID?"

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a search, what Im seeing from rasmussen June 2012, is 35.4% Rep.

34% Dem....and 30.5% unaffiliated.....Thats just about an even split.

The 7% to 11% weighting is something I've seen in multiple surveys

Here's a good one that explains the 9% weighting in a recent Florida poll

http://www.americant...hine_state.html

Here's another article, from Morris, a guy that I really respect

http://www.dickmorri...oll-propaganda/

Thanks Cris. I really respect Mr. Morris. His commentations have been right on. He has a lot to say about the Clintons too especially since he played a huge part in getting Clinton re-elected.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you desimo. I work with the elderly, minorities, the poor, the ugly, students, and addicts and everyone of them has a picture ID and if they didn't have one then it would take me about one hour to get them one as long as it is during a weekday and open hours (legally of course). They can't drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes, or cash their checks, without the proper ID (the list could go on for several pages). Only an uninformed fool would say that voters are disenfranchised if they have to have an ID! As desimo so eloquently puts it "showing an ID to vote does not keep anyone from voting". It only helps stop the fraud.

Now what it is about this that some people can't understand?? Or maybe the question should be "Now, for what reason would some people make up lame excuses to not require voters show their ID?"

Why do conservative voters want to fight the fight of voter registrations for the Republican politicians who are trying to change the laws? Why are they concerned with standard state voter registration and photo IDs?

Republicans believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote. This underscores why it is so critical to get the facts straight on voter fraud.

The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without cost justification.

There have been a handful of substantiated cases of individual ineligible voters attempting to defraud the election system. But by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. In part, this is because fraud by individual voters is a singularly foolish and ineffective way to attempt to win an election. We're talking about a few hundred people (<1,000) that didn't realize they were ineligible to vote during a specific period.

The majority of voter frauds have been from erroneous machines and absentee ballots. They need to be fixed!!!

Things aren't always what they appear to be. These arguments are an distraction from the real issues.

News media of choice severely affects the publics mind and generate blogs like this one.

Who's really being dishonest here: the Dems that do not want to disenfranchise people OR the Reps who wants to disenfranchise and alienate a few million Americans with a more clear objective (21 million)?

  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do conservative voters want to fight the fight of voter registrations for the Republican politicians who are trying to change the laws? Why are they concerned with standard state voter registration and photo IDs?

Republicans believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote. This underscores why it is so critical to get the facts straight on voter fraud.

The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without cost justification.

There have been a handful of substantiated cases of individual ineligible voters attempting to defraud the election system. But by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. In part, this is because fraud by individual voters is a singularly foolish and ineffective way to attempt to win an election. We're talking about a few hundred people (<1,000) that didn't realize they were ineligible to vote during a specific period.

The majority of voter frauds have been from erroneous machines and absentee ballots. They need to be fixed!!!

Things aren't always what they appear to be. These arguments are an distraction from the real issues.

News media of choice severely affects the publics mind and generate blogs like this one.

Who's really being dishonest here: the Dems that do not want to disenfranchise people OR the Reps who wants to disenfranchise and alienate a few million Americans with a more clear objective (21 million)?

Yeah, I dont believe those stats any more than I believe left leaning polls.

If these people can figure out how to get registered to vote & figure out

how to get to their respective voting places, they can easily get an ID for

voting.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I dont believe those stats any more than I believe left leaning polls.

If these people can figure out how to get registered to vote & figure out

how to get to their respective voting places, they can easily get an ID for

voting.

Find the stats Cris... Any neutral stats..... Find stats on folks misrepresenting themselves. Don't be naive. Do the search please and post what you find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find the stats Cris... Any neutral stats..... Find stats on folks misrepresenting themselves. Don't be naive. Do the search please and post what you find.

Stand Up For America

Voter ID Does NOT Equal Disenfranchisement

Nearly every single article I can find that lists a source links back to a survey from the

Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. In other words, nearly

every single person citing such statistics is operating on info released from a very heavily

left leaning source. If we are going to base the claims all on one study, I thought it pertinent

to look a little closer to what the survey entailed, because they would have you believe the

survey simply asked “do you have an ID?” But that is not what they asked. Here is what they

asked in their poll of 2000 people:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a

driver’s license or a military ID?

2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name

(as opposed to a maiden name) on it?

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents

(U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can

quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

If you answered 'no' to any of these questions, you would be counted as

a person that does not have ID.

So what does this show us? It shows us that the survey questions were written in a way that

causes a drastic inflation of the percentage of voting age Americans who do not have ID. I will

leave it up to you to decide whether this was an intentional effort to bolster liberal arguments

or whether the folks at NYU are just inept in producing valid data. Regardless of which it is,

the fact remains that the data is flawed.

And the conclusions derived from that data are even more flawed.

http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/voter-id-does-not-equal-disenfranchisement/

Edited by cris
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cris, Cris, I am so intrigue of all this back and forth information that you and the members bring. Very educational and this is what the people need at this point during this election era. Keep up the good work. Sometimes I just work up a sweat for you, but all fun in learning. Now let me cool down for the next round. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stand Up For America

Voter ID Does NOT Equal Disenfranchisement

Nearly every single article I can find that lists a source links back to a survey from the

Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. In other words, nearly

every single person citing such statistics is operating on info released from a very heavily

left leaning source. If we are going to base the claims all on one study, I thought it pertinent

to look a little closer to what the survey entailed, because they would have you believe the

survey simply asked “do you have an ID?” But that is not what they asked. Here is what they

asked in their poll of 2000 people:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a

driver’s license or a military ID?

2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name

(as opposed to a maiden name) on it?

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents

(U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can

quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

If you answered 'no' to any of these questions, you would be counted as

a person that does not have ID.

So what does this show us? It shows us that the survey questions were written in a way that

causes a drastic inflation of the percentage of voting age Americans who do not have ID. I will

leave it up to you to decide whether this was an intentional effort to bolster liberal arguments

or whether the folks at NYU are just inept in producing valid data. Regardless of which it is,

the fact remains that the data is flawed.

And the conclusions derived from that data are even more flawed.

http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/voter-id-does-not-equal-disenfranchisement/

(There's the catch) If the only data is from Brennan Center then what are the true reasons for the Reps to push for photo id? Wouldn't there be more influential information from politicians supporting the push? There should be data flowing from the right wing like Michelle Malkin, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299423/voter-fraud-facts-and-fiction-michelle-malkin.

She only speaks about e-voting, software and machines.

This is a disenfranchise movement, albeit temporary but timing is everything. I think eventually all states can and should move to photo ids with adequate time to educate and provide for the less fortunate.

Edited by simple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cris, Cris, I am so intrigue of all this back and forth information that you and the members bring. Very educational and this is what the people need at this point during this election era. Keep up the good work. Sometimes I just work up a sweat for you, but all fun in learning. Now let me cool down for the next round. :D

Thanks pattyangel....I think that I get pretty lucky (maybe blessed)

in being able to find this info right at my fingertips.

Or is it that there are just a lot more Conservatives out there responding,

and blogging than there used to be?...Either way, Im good ok with it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(There's the catch) If the only data is from Brennan Center then what are the true reasons for the Reps to push for photo id? Wouldn't there be more influential information from politicians supporting the push? There should be data flowing from the right wing like Michelle Malkin, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299423/voter-fraud-facts-and-fiction-michelle-malkin.

She only speaks about e-voting, software and machines.

This is a disenfranchise movement, albeit temporary but timing is everything. I think eventually all states can and should move to photo ids with adequate time to educate and provide for the less fortunate.

Im glad that we can both agree that there will, and should be

ID for voting. ;)

As shown, the survey, which the opposition to ID is based, from the

Brennon Center is not only innacurate, but laughably biased.

Voter fraud does indeed happen, and is easy in an area with no ID law.

The survey for that would be next to impossible to obtain, since the

perpetrators would have to confess.

Heres the funny thing...Acorn representatives have confessed to

fraud and have been prosecuted...The ones caught that is.

That Agency has been discredited, but make no mistake, those

people are still around, and still cheating.

Without ID, I could register in 20 places under different names

(found in the Phone Book) and vote in every one of those precincts.

I simply need a piece of mail (a bill) stolen from the mailbox to show

that I am that person....See how easy it is?....It happens all the time,

but will decrease with Voter ID.

I forgot to add....Dead people have an odd habit of voting too.

How the heck do they do that?

They do that, when a family member votes under their name, and

uses a piece of mail from that address to show that they are Aunt Ginny.

Its very common, and its cheating and fraud.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.