758,000 Pennsylvania voters

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Flybrick
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#101 Post by Flybrick » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:51 am

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... -john-fund
The Chamorro-native-controlled government of Guam is actively excluding the non-Chamorro U.S. citizens on the island from voting in an upcoming referendum on the island’s future. Non-native citizens — Filipinos, other Asians, whites, and blacks — are even prohibited from registering to vote for the election, although they make up 63 percent of the island’s 155,000 residents.
The restriction is defended by Guam as being non-racial because it restricts the vote to “native inhabitants” who lived in Guam in 1950 and their direct descendants.

But the Supreme Court has frequently struck down such sly attempts to restrict voting rights. In Guinn v. United States (1915), the Court rejected Oklahoma’s attempt to close voter-registration rolls by saying that the Fifteenth Amendment nullifies “sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination.” In 2000, in Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed only native Hawaiians to vote on who should run the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The court opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are, by their very nature, odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” The Voting Rights Act of 1965, barring discrimination in voting, is also in full effect in Guam.
The challenge to Guam’s law was brought by Dave Davis, a retired Air Force major who has lived in Guam for 35 years. When he tried to register to participate in the referendum, his application was rejected and stamped “void” by the Election Commission. Davis said he was particularly offended because the form required him to certify his racial background under penalty of perjury. Lawyers from the stateside Election Law Center and the Center for Individual Rights helped Davis file a class-action suit alleging racial discrimination. He acted only after Holder’s Justice Department refused to do anything about the matter. Davis told the local Rotary Club that he filed his lawsuit “to dispel the notion that some American citizens are more qualified to vote on public issues than others.”

Justice’s indifference to his complaint is striking given that Guam’s law is even worse than many of the odious Jim Crow statutes that limited voting in the South. “Even under Jim Crow, some blacks successfully registered to vote after they navigated the nasty maze of character exams and shifting office hours,” says former DOJ civil-rights attorney Christian Adams, who is representing Major Davis.
And nary a peep from AG Holder about "disenfranchising" citizens.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 27133
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#102 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:09 am

Flybrick wrote:And nary a peep from AG Holder about "disenfranchising" citizens.
And how do you know that? He may not have made any public statements but how do you know he's not communicating with the Governor?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#103 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:37 am

Flybrick wrote:And nary a peep from AG Holder about "disenfranchising" citizens.
So why do you think Attorney General Holder traveled to Guam this week? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#104 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:01 pm

Here's a look at what happens in the real world.
Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo! News wrote:Nearly 500,000 eligible voters in these 10 states do not have access to a vehicle and live over 10 miles from the closest office where they can obtain the type of identification required to vote in their state, according to the center's study, which came out this week. Many offices maintain limited or odd hours, such as being open only one day a month. Additionally, some eligible voters in those states face an added challenge in that they have to pay for the underlying documentation necessary to obtain the photo identification.

The center estimates that 11 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. currently do not possess the type of photo-issued government ID required by these restrictive laws. Most of those affected are minorities.
The study discussed by this story is found here. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#105 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:12 pm

News flash: Voter fraud discovered in Arizona. Of course, the fraud at issue was someone voting absentee for five years after she died, so a voter ID law would have done nothing to prevent it. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Flybrick
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#106 Post by Flybrick » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:41 pm

Since this is about voter "disenfranchisement (sp? real word?):

http://nation.foxnews.com/new-black-pan ... rosecution
A federal court in Washington, DC, held today that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#107 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:11 pm

Flybrick wrote:Since this is about voter "disenfranchisement (sp? real word?):

http://nation.foxnews.com/new-black-pan ... rosecution
A federal court in Washington, DC, held today that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
There's a shocker. A Fox News headline is inaccurate.

The Court held no such thing. The Court found that some of the documents that were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request could support that argument (not that those were the facts), and that was enough (in conjunction with other factors) to justify a fee award for plaintiff's efforts in obtaining the documents. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Flybrick
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#108 Post by Flybrick » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:10 pm

So you're going with the "inaccurate because it's Fox" and not the caught on video fact of armed men threatening voters immediately outside the entrance of a polling station? The same case that DOJ had already won a preliminary judgment against those same armed men until the current DOJ leadership took over?

Nice...

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#109 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:22 am

Flybrick wrote:So you're going with the "inaccurate because it's Fox" and not the caught on video fact of armed men threatening voters immediately outside the entrance of a polling station? The same case that DOJ had already won a preliminary judgment against those same armed men until the current DOJ leadership took over?

Nice...
The video in your link doesn't show armed men threatening anyone. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Flybrick
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#110 Post by Flybrick » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:20 am

http://www.wtop.com/41/3030384/Md-candi ... ting-flap-

I figured this was the appropriate place for this:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland dropped out Monday after that state's Democratic party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and in the 2008 presidential primaries.
A spokesman for the Florida secretary of state's office noted that providing false information on a voter registration form is a felony in that state. Spokesman Chris Cote also said voting twice is a felony under federal law.

"Currently, there is not a system for states to check whether or not their voters are registered in other states," Cote said in an email.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#111 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:54 am

Flybrick wrote:http://www.wtop.com/41/3030384/Md-candi ... ting-flap-

I figured this was the appropriate place for this:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland dropped out Monday after that state's Democratic party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and in the 2008 presidential primaries.
A spokesman for the Florida secretary of state's office noted that providing false information on a voter registration form is a felony in that state. Spokesman Chris Cote also said voting twice is a felony under federal law.

"Currently, there is not a system for states to check whether or not their voters are registered in other states," Cote said in an email.
Note that Voter ID laws would not have prevented this type of election fraud. And from this story, by the way, it appears that the state Democratic Party was the entity that discovered and exposed her fraud. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#112 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:36 pm

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vacated the order denying a preliminary injunction and ordered the trial court to try again. The test the trial court must apply is to determine whether the Voter ID law will cause the disenfranchisement of any eligible voters. If so, it must grant the injunction. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 13744
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#113 Post by BackInTex » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:51 pm

Bob78164 wrote:The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vacated the order denying a preliminary injunction and ordered the trial court to try again. The test the trial court must apply is to determine whether the Voter ID law will cause the disenfranchisement of any eligible voters. If so, it must grant the injunction. --Bob
By allowing people to vote, who are not eligible, disenfranchises all eligible voters. So where do you draw the line?
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#114 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:59 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vacated the order denying a preliminary injunction and ordered the trial court to try again. The test the trial court must apply is to determine whether the Voter ID law will cause the disenfranchisement of any eligible voters. If so, it must grant the injunction. --Bob
By allowing people to vote, who are not eligible, disenfranchises all eligible voters. So where do you draw the line?
Read the opinion -- it's only 7 pages. (By the way, half of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are Republicans.) The Commonwealth stipulated that there was no evidence (none at all) of voter impersonation fraud.

It's notable that the issue isn't Voter ID in the abstract. The issue is rushing its implementation. All of the justices (and the appellants) conceded that if the Commonwealth had allowed enough time to implement the act, it would pass muster. But rushing its implementation will disenfranchise eligible voters, and on this record, there's no corresponding gain because there's no voter impersonation fraud to prevent.

The other notable point is that the Court relied on the State Constitution. That means if the law is ultimately struck down, there won't be a basis to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#115 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:29 am

One of the sponsors of the bill isn't concerned if it means the "lazy people" who constitute Mitt Romney's 47% don't get to vote:



In other news, there are hours-long lines of people trying to get the necessary ID. It doesn't help that in 13 counties the DMV is open only one day per week, and in another 10 counties it's open only two days per week.

And of course, this assumes they already have the documentation Pennsylvania insists upon for the Voter ID. If you have to get it, add more time (and potentially lost hours from work) to get that documentation. All of this in a tearing rush in order to prevent a problem that (the Commonwealth stipulated) has not occurred. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#116 Post by jarnon » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:37 am

Judge Simpson has issued his injunction, in response to the State Supreme Court decision. Voters will not have to show photo ID to vote next month. So the mad dash to get ID can stop. But in principle, requiring photo ID to vote doesn't violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Judge Simpson wrote:After supplemental hearing and after consideration of the oral and written arguments of counsel, it is ordered and decreed as follows: Petitioners' App. for PI is granted in part. Based on the foregoing Supplemental Determination, the Respondents and their agents, servants and officers are hereby Preliminary Enjoined from:
1. Requiring that a registered elector must apply for a PennDOT product prior to the elector 's seeking issuance of a free DOS ID; and
2. Implementing or enforcing that part of Act 18 which amends Section 1210(a.2) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. Section 3050(a.2), and Section 1210(a.4)(5)(ii) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. Section 3050(a.4), for the general election of 11-6-12. It is the intent of this preliminary injunction to extend the transition procedures described in Section 10(1) of Act 18 beyond 9-17-12, and through the general election of 11-6-12. Nothing in this preliminary injunction shall preclude the Cmwlth from following transition procedures described in Section 10(2) of Act 18 (relating to additional education efforts to those not showing proof of identification for in-person voting) for the general election of 11-6-12. All other provisions of ACt 18 remain in effect. The court shall conduct a status conference with counsel on 12-13-12, 10:00 am, CR 3001, PJC, HBG. Petitioners shall arrange for a court reporter to be present. After conference , the court shall issue a scheduling order pertaining to the close of pleadings, completion of discovery, and trial on the application for a permanent injunction.
The judge's opinion explaining his order can be found at www.pacourts.us.
Слава Україні!

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#117 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:48 am

The trial court has struck down this law on the ground that it places an unreasonable burden on people trying to exercise their fundamental right to vote. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 13744
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#118 Post by BackInTex » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:13 am

Bob78164 wrote:The trial court has struck down this law on the ground that it places an unreasonable burden on people trying to exercise their fundamental right to vote. --Bob
I guess their definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. I further guess that "effort" is considered a synonym for "unreasonable".
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#119 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:03 am

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The trial court has struck down this law on the ground that it places an unreasonable burden on people trying to exercise their fundamental right to vote. --Bob
I guess their definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. I further guess that "effort" is considered a synonym for "unreasonable".
As a matter of constitutional law it probably is. Whenever a government restriction impinges on a constitutional right, the government must demonstrate that the law serves a compelling state purpose, that it is well tailored to achieve that purpose and that there are no less burdensome means of achieving the purpose. Considering the number of these voter ID laws that have sprung up in states with Republican controlled legislatures absent any evidence of fraud, it's easy to see how the court in this case was not persuaded by the government's claims.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22160
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#120 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:24 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The trial court has struck down this law on the ground that it places an unreasonable burden on people trying to exercise their fundamental right to vote. --Bob
I guess their definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. I further guess that "effort" is considered a synonym for "unreasonable".
As a matter of constitutional law it probably is. Whenever a government restriction impinges on a constitutional right, the government must demonstrate that the law serves a compelling state purpose, that it is well tailored to achieve that purpose and that there are no less burdensome means of achieving the purpose. Considering the number of these voter ID laws that have sprung up in states with Republican controlled legislatures absent any evidence of fraud, it's easy to see how the court in this case was not persuaded by the government's claims.
One story reports that the trial court expressly rejected the "voter fraud" rationale. I haven't yet seen a link to the actual opinion. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 13744
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#121 Post by BackInTex » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:28 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The trial court has struck down this law on the ground that it places an unreasonable burden on people trying to exercise their fundamental right to vote. --Bob
I guess their definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. I further guess that "effort" is considered a synonym for "unreasonable".
As a matter of constitutional law it probably is. Whenever a government restriction impinges on a constitutional right, the government must demonstrate that the law serves a compelling state purpose, that it is well tailored to achieve that purpose and that there are no less burdensome means of achieving the purpose. Considering the number of these voter ID laws that have sprung up in states with Republican controlled legislatures absent any evidence of fraud, it's easy to see how the court in this case was not persuaded by the government's claims.
I think voter IDs are probably easier to get than apply for food stamps, unemployment, welfare or Obamacare. But there are activists willing to help with those. Odd (suspicious) the activists aren't out and about volunteering to help get the voters their IDs.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#122 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:48 am

BackInTex wrote: I think voter IDs are probably easier to get than apply for food stamps, unemployment, welfare or Obamacare. But there are activists willing to help with those. Odd (suspicious) the activists aren't out and about volunteering to help get the voters their IDs.
When I went to renew my drivers license last month, I had to present proof of my birth date (birth certificate or passport), proof of my social security number, and two different documents proving my residential address. If my name had changed, I would have needed a complete paper trail documenting the name change. Needless to say, I didn't have all that with me the first time, so they could only issue a temporary renewal. That's a good bit of hassle.

And again, you must not have read my response. It's not how tough or easy the voter IDs are to get, it's whether they are well tailored for a compelling state interest and whether there's a less burdensome way of accomplishing the same thing.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: 758,000 Pennsylvania voters

#123 Post by jarnon » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:13 pm

Bob78164 wrote:[I haven't yet seen a link to the actual opinion. --Bob
Judge McGinley's opinion can be found at www.pacourts.us.
BackInTex wrote:I think voter IDs are probably easier to get than apply for food stamps, unemployment, welfare or Obamacare. But there are activists willing to help with those. Odd (suspicious) the activists aren't out and about volunteering to help get the voters their IDs.
After the Voter ID law was enacted and before the temporary injunction stopping it, get-out-the-vote volunteers made a big effort to get IDs for everyone. For example, a city-owned nursing home in Philadelphia was authorized to issue IDs to anyone who could prove their identity. And the state government relaxed the rules for photo IDs and ran an advertising campaign.

But the Republicans weren't trying to make it impossible for some people to get IDs. They just wanted to stack the deck in favor of their supporters. For instance, college IDs were acceptable if they had an expiration date, but the IDs at Pennsylvania's largest urban colleges, like Temple and Pitt, happened to not have expiration dates. If it's harder to get a photo ID, some people aren't going to bother, and if those people would have voted Democratic, the Republicans will get an edge.
Слава Україні!

Post Reply