PA Voter ID Battle Lost, War Won
In Pennsylvania, election-integrity advocates lost a battle but won the war. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson today blocked implementation of Pennsylvania’s photo voter-identification law, but only for the upcoming election. The court rejected the request of voter ID opponents to find the Pennsylvania law to be held unconstitutional. Friction involving implementation, however, of the law in time for November’s election led the court to block the requirement.
Nevertheless, voters in Pennsylvania in the upcoming election will still be asked to show photo identification. If a voter, however, does not have photo identification, he or she will still be allowed to vote. In future elections, Pennsylvania voters must show valid photo identification.
Judge Simpson was constrained by the logic of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, that court required Simpson to “make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternative identification cards.” At issue was whether or not PennDOT was effectively distributing the free cards. The Supreme Court required Judge Simpson to find essentially either perfect PennDOT implementation or “to enter a preliminary injunction.”
Anyone who has experienced Pittsburgh potholes in springtime knows about PennDOT effectiveness. And thus, Judge Simmons could not allow the law to go into full effect.
That’s the end of the good news for the vote-fraud deniers who opposed the law.
Incidentally, the lead plaintiff, Viviette Applewhite, claimed that she was unable to get photo identification. The day after Judge Simpson ruled against her last month, Applewhite went out and got a photo ID. Like every other challenge brought to photo ID in every other case, Applewhite’s claims of disenfranchisement were actually litigation bluster.
Viviette Applewhite gets her free ID
The opinion, apart from the injunction, dismantles much of the spin used by voter ID opponents. Even the plaintiffs now concede “that parts of Act 18 (relating to proof of identification for absentee voting) do not cause injury and may be implemented. Therefore, they no longer seek a total ban on implementation of Act 18.”
That’s another way of saying that plaintiffs cried wolf. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that proof of identification for absentee voting was invalid, but now admits it is valid.
The plaintiffs also wanted Pennsylvania to stop educating the public about the new requirements. This claim reveals the crass partisan aims of voter ID litigation. The NAACP, the organization behind the lawsuit, didn’t want Pennsylvania to educate the public about the requirements of the new law because they fear that any information about new requirements to prove identity will dissuade certain voters from voting. The NAACP feared that some would hear the education campaign, but not hear that getting a free photo ID was easy.
The NAACP position merged with the aims of partisan electoral politics. Factual government speech about a new law might endanger the reelection of President Obama.
Thankfully, Judge Simpson refused to grant the NAACP the relief of keeping Pennsylvanians ignorant.
But the biggest loss for the NAACP was the court’s refusal to enjoin election officials from asking for photo identification: “As a result, I will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement.”
This means that on Election Day, every single voter will be asked for photo identification in Pennsylvania. The culture of ignorance will begin to change. People will be put on notice that in future elections, they will need to obtain a free photo identification to establish they are who they say they are. And no longer will hundreds of American citizens be relegated to second-class economic status, unable to check into a hotel, rent a car, or fully participate in economic life because they lack photo ID.
Some fabulists have called photo ID the “new Jim Crow.” Unfortunately, these same people are content to have those without photo ID live in permanent economic segregation, unable to utilize many public accommodations. They reveal a great deal about themselves when they conjure up America’s darkest days. Today’s court decision goes a long way to ending those divisions between Americans.
How much money has been spent letting everyone know that it is racist to require ID’s? If all the money for both sides could have been spent hiring drivers to get people ID’s there would be no problem. But, why solve a problem when you can inflame it. How are they getting away with this? I often wonder where the media will live when they have destroyed America and they finally want to get the word out but are censored. Good grief!
Those who believe the crocodile will eat them last, have no idea what it means to have a fire breathing beast hot on their trail. Not only that, but ones who pretend to champion the rights of the disenfranchised,yet fail to allow them to live as normal citizens, expose their hypocrisy for what it is.
Nevertheless, the left truly believes that such rules do not apply to them, after all, they have a ‘greater’ good in mind – the reshaping of society into many segments of ‘have nots’.
The real tragedy is that many of the truly downtrodden have NO idea that the left aims to keep them on all fours. And, many well meaning liberals still believe that the Dem party is the party which cares about minority rights, unlike the right, which is the devil incarnate.
Regardless, a vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST the rule of law – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/20/americans-hope-to-change-the-occupant-of-the-white-house-an-anti-american-potus-runs-an-un-american-campaign-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Unfortunately, these same people are content to have those without photo ID live in permanent economic segregation, unable to utilize many public accommodations.
Including being able to go into the DOJ building to complain about needing an ID to vote.
For the first time in her adult life, Viviette Applewhite is proud of her … ur … proud of her … uh … (*scratches head*) … ah … oh yeah, proud of her new photo ID.
Dems cheat at elections. That’s why they hate voter ID laws. Requiring voters to show ID just makes it that much harder to cheat if the voter actually has to be real and exist and be breathing and stuff. Disenfranchisement is a red herring, and was never a real issue.
Maybe you miss the point. The upcoming election may be the most important election in the last 150 years. It’s virtually “the whole ball of wax”, and may determine the path of the country for the foreseeable future. In 2016, after another 1,000 of Obama’s executive orders, the US may not be recognizable as the country any of us grew up in.
The Left knows this full well, and will pull out all the stops to ensure they get every advantage, however temporary. This is part of that plan.
Yes, Tommy… you get it.
This battle is the war.
To paraphrase Talleyrand:
You can do anything with ballets except rule with them.
In this country, rule still requires the consent of the governed;
When Obama’s edicts begin to bite there will be legal, nonviolent
resistance at every level from individual to state government, and
the Won will either back down or be impeached.
Unless he’s already issued the edict to shoot down anyone who dissents.
Anyone so disconnected from society that they can’t figure out how to, or can’t accomplish, getting a photo ID, shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
You mean to tell me that all of these people can’t write a check or cash a check or use a credit card, get on an airplane. I bet if someone was to look into Viviettes recent past they could find where she got on a airplane. we all know they will not let you with out a Photo ID. Please give me a break. This is more Odummer attempt to steal an election.
One can board an airplane without photo ID. There are alternative TSA procedures.
I’d like to see what happens if someone actually tried it. Somebody who wasn’t pre-cleared by the DNC, anyway.
In Florida you are supposed to show one of the cards listed below. It is ludicrous to to say this is a hardship. I have volunteered in a local food pantry where we were required to ask for ID. I do not recall a single instance when a person did not have either a driver’s license or a state id.
Florida driver’s license
Florida identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
United States passport
Debit or credit card
Military identification
Student identification
Retirement center identification
Neighborhood association identification
Public assistance identification
This old crone is how old – and just NOW getting a photo ID??!?!?!
Seriously, someone that slow shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place!
Back in the day, a lot of women didn’t drive and their husbands took care of all the banking and other family business. My grandmother wasn’t much older than this lady and she never got a driver’s license. I don’t recall her ever having any sort of ID. She just never needed one.
However, I think the number of women old enough to use that excuse is decreasing rapidly.
Even my grandmother had a photo ID – and she’s been gone many a decade now.
On top of that, so what if they never had to get an ID before? They are certainly old enough to know by now HOW to get one if they do need it!
Yes, future elections. To me, that is quite an assumption. This election is the one they need to steal. This one is for all the marbles.
It’s more twisted logic. The Dems oppose this law. The Dems also run the machinery in PA. So, the reason for the enjoining is that the Dem administration is too incompetent to provide the ID’s in time for this election? What? So, if they win this election via fraud, and they remain in charge and incompetent, is the judge going to block it next time, too? You’re going to wait for them to become competent, before allowing the law? What?
“This means that on Election Day, every single voter will be asked for photo identification in Pennsylvania. The culture of ignorance will begin to change”
As far the current election is concerned, is it less likely that voter fraud will occur?
“As far the current election is concerned, is it less likely that voter fraud will occur?”
As the state coordinator for True the Vote, I can say “no”, it is NOT less likely. Those who are planning to commit fraud are going to do try to doit irrespective of this ruling. Having some requirement for voter ID would have made committing fraud a little tougher, but we are still training observers to watch for all sorts of illicit behavior. What’s going on in PA will be similar to activities in other states: careful diligent volunteers will be in polls and will be watching for those who will try to vote multiple times or any other of the well known attempts to defraud the system.
“watching for those who will try to vote multiple times”
Thanks for your comment. So what happens to a person who does come in a second time and is identified? It would seem to me it would only occur in precincts where controls are loose? Very loose!
“So what happens to a person who does come in a second time and is identified?”
If they are identified, the poll judge, (who has final say in all events within the polling place proper) asks them to leave quietly. If they won’t and it elevates, it’s a matter of law enforcement.
News flash from the NAACP: Black people are broken and cannot take care of themselves!
Hasn’t this message gotten old yet?
Apparently not; It still works for them. What a day it will be when their “field hands” rise up and shake off the shackles of ignorance and take their place among the citizens.
The law was not very well written. The confusion was that if your name on your drivers license was slightly different than the name on your voter registration card it was up to the discretion of the poll worker whether or not to accept your photo ID. This lead to the “Committee of 70″ (*supposedly* a nonpartisan voter rights group in Philadelphia) to recommend everyone re-register to vote if their drivers license had their middle name on it but their voter ID did not! Can you imagine the lines at PennDOT offices? Meanwhile, addresses on the two documents didn’t have to match.
As I tried to tell one of my hysterical friends, “The point of a photo ID is A PHOTO.”
The confusion was that if your name on your drivers license was slightly different than the name on your voter registration card it was up to the discretion of the poll worker whether or not to accept your photo ID.
The standard is that the name substantially conforms to the name of the individual as it appears in the district register. A poll worker can’t keep you from voting if your drivers license is slightly different.
Originally, the standard was to be an exact match, IIRC.
The next Democrat legislation/litigation will authorize all criminals to wear face masks and anyone against the practice will be accused of racial discrimination and violation of personal privacy on the grounds that most criminals are Black and have a right to privacy. The logic is exactly the same: voter identification hurts only those who plan to vote illegally, i.e., Democrats.
Time for a counter-offensive: change the terms of the election from winner-take-all to district-by-district plus two at large electors.
The NAACP has evolved into nothing more than a hate group. I think their own founders would spit on them for frittering away friendship and making enemies out of 225 million white Americans falsely charged as racists without trial.
Viviette Applewhite, you are part of the problem. I hope you don’t drive and purchase malt liquor now.
Malt liquor? Careful, I’m pretty sure that’s dog whistle racism.
Seriously, this issue is so absolutely indefensible it’s ridiculous. Anyone who does not have a photo ID today knew 4 YEARS AGO that there would be another election for president. Maybe they could have found the time to get a flipping ID in that amount of time.
Oh, and for all you lame-assed, disenfranchised types. There will be another election after this one some day. Got it now? So start working on getting off your food stamp-fed asses now and getting your ID. Then you can all shut the f#%* up.
The local Pittsburgh news had a snippet of former Pittsburgh mayor Sophie Masloff complaining that she might not have proper id to vote. I almost snorted I laughed so hard. Some Democrats really have no clue how stupid they come off.
LMAO! Sophie Maddoff!!
As if someone would not recognize her in da burgh. What a jaggoff…
(yes, it’s true… I understand and can speak Pittsburghese)
spelled it Madd-off on purpose…
Can’t she use her socialist party member card?
IDs won’t stop Democrats from cheating. Look for Democrats to produce fake IDs for all their fraudulent voters before the next election. I don’t trust our voting systems. We need thumbprint ID and 100% re-registration in every state before Democrats steal any more elections.
The GOP candidate for prez ought to bring this up in the debate. It’s a win-win issue.
Paul, creating fake IDs for fraudulant in-person voting would be logistically difficult. If I understand how this works, a homeless person or someone else with little to lose gets cash in exchange for voting in the name of someone else. It would be a difficult to make enough photo IDs with both a photo of the random underclass person paired with the correct dead person/ACORN fake registered voter name to swing an election.
As a Canadian, I am flabbergasted that ID is not required to vote in many U.S. states. Here in Canada it has been the law for decades and I would guess it has been the law in Europe and elsewhere for many decades as well.
Must be a buncha racists in Canada /sarcasm.
I’m Canadian too and have been voting for decades now. I don’t recall ever having to show ID before the last federal election. (I could be wrong; maybe I showed ID the election before that too. But I didn’t show any ID in the 70s, 80s or 90s.) And we only recently passed a law that forced people to reveal their faces when voting. (For the Americans reading this, there were concerns that people in burkas could vote without anyone verifying that their face matched any photo ID. The same legislation ordered – for the first time – people taking their citizenship vow to similarly show their faces.)
Heard this great joke I think from Dennis Miller. Hugo Chavez can go to Pennsylvania and vote because he doesn’t need an ID. Obama can’t go to Venezuela because you DO need an ID.
Funny how in Hawaii, which is completely controlled by Democrats we have always required photo ID’s to vote. I guess they have no problem with that rule when they know they will win anyway. They only get upset in States where they know they have to cheat to win.
Here come the busses.
How patronizing to claim that an entire class of people (not openly defined by race, but still-) canot get an ID on their own!
If you’re against voter ID, you’re for vote fraud. End of story. Republicans are for voter ID. Dems are against. Dems also want felons to be granted the right to vote. Republicans don’t. I assume that is because the vast majority of felons are Democrats.
The only way Dem policies make sense is if one wants to destroy the country. Given all the destructive things Dems stand in favor of, it’s impossible to draw any other conclusion.
It’s nice to see the silver lining and J Christian largely reflects my views but the poll workers in certain Philly wards are not going to take not being restrained from asking for photo ID as encouragement.
With that said, Robert Simpson did not pull a John Roberts and that speaks to his credit.
I still don’t understand the problem about ID’s. Thanks to the HIPAA act, which requires privacy on medical matters, you cannot see a doctor, or get treatment in an immediate care or emergency room without and ID. So those against the ID law are saying that none of the poor are ever getting medical help? You also need an ID to obtain welfare and/or SNAP benefits. Again, what is the problem?