Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Pennsylvania acknowledges there is no evidence of voter fraud rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
A state law was passed in March through a GOP-led legislature requiring voters to show a driver's license or government issued photo ID before voting. This was sold to the public as an attempt to "stop voter fraud." Upon passage of this bill, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader Mike Turzai declared his accomplishments at a Republican state committee meeting last month:
Mike Turzai wrote:
"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"

As this decision has ended up in court (as many consider it an expressly unconstitutional poll-tax,) the state now declares it will not claim that voter fraud is likely to occur:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/state-acknow...
Post-Gazette wrote:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

It is unlikely that Romney wins PA, but it won't be for lack of trying by his surrogates.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Turzai wrote:
Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"
Post-Gazette wrote:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law

At least the majority leader was being honest about why he wanted it past. You have to at least give him that. It's not often when the top elected official of a party will admit that to get their guy in, they need to disenfranchise a whole segment of legal voters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
1. Voter shows up to vote, and is turn away for lack of ID.

2. Goes to supreme court.

3. ???

4. Voter ID laws gone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Mike Turzai wrote:
Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"
Post-Gazette wrote:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law

At least the majority leader was being honest about why he wanted it past. You have to at least give him that. It's not often when the top elected official of a party will admit that to get their guy in, they need to disenfranchise a whole segment of legal voters.


I've said consistently that for the professional politicians the motive for these laws is to reduce Democratic votes, but the quoted statement is 100% consistent with either "this will cost Democrats legitimate votes" or "this will stop Democrats from stealing the election". It's not reasonable to assume that he must have meant the latter.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Mike Turzai wrote:
Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"
Post-Gazette wrote:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law

At least the majority leader was being honest about why he wanted it past. You have to at least give him that. It's not often when the top elected official of a party will admit that to get their guy in, they need to disenfranchise a whole segment of legal voters.


I've said consistently that for the professional politicians the motive for these laws is to reduce Democratic votes, but the quoted statement is 100% consistent with either "this will cost Democrats legitimate votes" or "this will stop Democrats from stealing the election". It's not reasonable to assume that he must have meant the latter.


I've thought that every time I've seen this quote trotted out. I certainly believe as you do that the goal of voter ID is to block voters who would likely vote for the Dems, but I dislike seeing this quote used as "evidence" of dishonesty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.


I imagine you're right. This is an aspect of politics I dislike. Both sides try to game the system however they can--voter ID, changing early voting requirements, trying to block military ballots, gerrymandering, offering rides to voters but only on partisan lines, etc. I would prefer a government where the parties tried to win voters on their own merits rather than gamesmanship. I don't think we'll see it in my lifetime, though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.


Show any part of the constitution that your rights do not require yoou to provide ID? Want to buy a gun, show ID, want to vote shoe ID, want to express yourself freeley show ID.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?
It's not so much about "not proving one's identity," as it is about demanding a very particular type of photo ID. Everyone that votes in PA is mailed a voter-registration card, which was formerly good enough.

Attorney General Eric Holder brought up the "poll tax" comparison, and uses Texas ID laws as proving his point of discrimination:
Quote:
Holder said Tuesday that 25 percent of African Americans do not have the type of IDs Texas requires to vote while just 8 percent of whites do not have a valid ID.
Thus the Justice Department is investigating for possible discrimination.

And when the PA State Legislature (famous for doing nothing that helps anyone besides their own midnight pay-raises) decides to tackle a problem that even they admit does not exist, it smells more than a little rotten in Denmark.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.


Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.


Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights. They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.


You say that with absolute certainty, but it's almost guaranteed that a voter ID law will prevent some eligible voters from voting.

Even the Supreme Court recognizes that in the 2008 case cited by damiangerous. (They just ruled that the hindrance was minimal and the state interest justified it.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.


Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights. They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.

That depends on the details of how it's done. If I show up with my Israeli ID card which has my name and picture on it, would that be accepted as proof of who I am?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.


Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights. They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.

That depends on the details of how it's done. If I show up with my Israeli ID card which has my name and picture on it, would that be accepted as proof of who I am?


If I showed up to vote in Isreal with my Oregon driver's license, do you think they would accept it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.


Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights. They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.

That depends on the details of how it's done. If I show up with my Israeli ID card which has my name and picture on it, would that be accepted as proof of who I am?


If I showed up to vote in Isreal with my Oregon driver's license, do you think they would accept it?


If you moved to Pennsylvania and wanted to vote would they accept your Oregon driver's license?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights.


Except that they very obviously are.

Quote:
They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.


Yes. Both of them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
whac3 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Could somebody show me in the constitution (either National or in the state of PA) where it says there is a right to vote without proving one's identity? Or where it states that the state does not have a right to establish a reasonable means by which a person establishes their identity?

I have a really hard time seeing this get struck down by the supreme court.

Any hidrance to the exercise of voting rights has a high legal hurdle to leap in order to be deemed Constitutional.


Voter ID laws aren't a hindrance to voting rights. They're a hindrance to those who would vote illegally.

That depends on the details of how it's done. If I show up with my Israeli ID card which has my name and picture on it, would that be accepted as proof of who I am?


If I showed up to vote in Isreal with my Oregon driver's license, do you think they would accept it?

It depends on the circumstances. We do have to show Israeli ID to vote but we don't go by the US Constitution-- not being part of the US and all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:


Well, if we're talking about requiring ID to cast your vote in the Electoral College, you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately for you, we're not and it's up to the states to determine how they award their electors to the various candidates.


Well if you were a supreme court justice, then you would have a valid point, but you're not, soooo lets just wait to see what they say about it, hmm?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.


Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation


Well, if we're talking about requiring ID to cast your vote in the Electoral College, you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately for you, we're not and it's up to the states to determine how they award their electors to the various candidates.


You Americans really do have a fucked ellectorial system, why not just have one man one vote?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.


Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation


Well, if we're talking about requiring ID to cast your vote in the Electoral College, you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately for you, we're not and it's up to the states to determine how they award their electors to the various candidates.


You Americans really do have a fucked ellectorial system, why not just have one man one vote?

Because then politicians would only care about NYC, LA and Chicago.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.


Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation


Well, if we're talking about requiring ID to cast your vote in the Electoral College, you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately for you, we're not and it's up to the states to determine how they award their electors to the various candidates.


You Americans really do have a fucked ellectorial system, why not just have one man one vote?

Because then politicians would only care about NYC, LA and Chicago.


That's why they have two houses, to ensure some kind of local representaion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Scope is irrelevant. This was a US Supreme Court decision. The law requiring ID is either Constitutional or it is not. It can't be Constitutional for some elections and not others.

Reading further on this, it appears the litigants are taking a different tack than Constitutionality anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
How is this even in court? The Supreme Court decided the voter ID issue in 2008 with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Case closed. Requiring ID is Constitutional.


Because that was an election at the local level. This is a presidential election. Different scope.

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation


Well, if we're talking about requiring ID to cast your vote in the Electoral College, you'd have a valid point. Unfortunately for you, we're not and it's up to the states to determine how they award their electors to the various candidates.


You Americans really do have a fucked ellectorial system, why not just have one man one vote?

Because then politicians would only care about NYC, LA and Chicago.


That's why they have two houses, to ensure some kind of local representaion.

Yes, in Congress but not for the executive which is where it's not one-man-one-vote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Mike Turzai wrote:
Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,"
Post-Gazette wrote:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law

At least the majority leader was being honest about why he wanted it past. You have to at least give him that. It's not often when the top elected official of a party will admit that to get their guy in, they need to disenfranchise a whole segment of legal voters.


I've said consistently that for the professional politicians the motive for these laws is to reduce Democratic votes, but the quoted statement is 100% consistent with either "this will cost Democrats legitimate votes" or "this will stop Democrats from stealing the election". It's not reasonable to assume that he must have meant the latter.

If they aren't going to present evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur, then the majority leader was either grossly misinformed about the legitimacy of the bill, or he meant legal voters.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.