Posted on 12/30/2005 8:25:21 PM PST by FreeKeys
HARRISBURG-- A bill that would require Pennsylvania voters to show ... identification at the polls or be forced to cast a provisional ballot has passed the state Senate.
The ... bill was approved ... 29-21, and sent to the House, which has already approved a measure with similar requirements.
However, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rendell and an ACLU official criticized it as putting up obstacles for voters.
"The governor is concerned that identification requirements may discourage people from voting and eventually disenfranchise people," said Rendell's press secretary.
If [it] becomes law, the requirements would be in force for the 2006 election, when Pennsylvania voters will elect a governor, U.S. senator and most members of the state Legislature.
"What we want is to give people a reason to have 100%confidence in the system, that everyone eligible to vote had a real chance to ... and to only vote ONCE," said Erik Arneson, the chief of staff for the Senate's Republican leader, David J. Brightbill of Lebanon County.
Currently, only people voting in a polling place for the first time must show identification.
[...]
If the voter cannot produce such identification, or if the identification is challenged by an election judge, the voter could cast a provisional ballot, which are typically used when an individual's name does not appear on voter rolls.
Elections officials later decide whether provisional ballots are valid.
Provisional ballots cast under the legislation would not be counted if the ballot is challenged at a later hearing and the voter who cast it does not produce identification to the county board of elections.
Larry Frankel, the legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, warned that the legislation could lead to long lines at polling places and higher costs for counties that must process greater numbers of provisional ballots.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
This is another one I don`t get. How in the world could you rationally explain why this is a bad thing?
this is a snow job to make it look like they are getting tuff on vote fraud, when in reality all the provisional ballots will be accepted and nothing will have changed.
Intelligent Design?
I'd like to see a system like they do in Iraq with the purple finger dye. It might eliminate this problem we have with dozens of goons being bused to multiple polling places.
That's good, but only half the answer. I don't want illegals voting even the FIRST time!
because somebody needs 120% voter turnout in Philadelphia.
Maybe. Maybe not. If the GOP gets its act together there will be stinks raised in every precinct that tries it. But as you know, that's a big "IF"!
It appears that the aCLU has finally figured out that DemocRATS cannot get elected without rampant voter fraud. I guess they are just "slower" than everyone else.
Oh, I get it; they finally "got aCLU". Heh.
How are Democrats supposed to win elections if the dead can't vote? Or boarded-up rowhouses full of homeless outpatients? Or nursing homes full of Democrats whose dementia prevents them from showing ID? C'mon, man....
When one considers the number of American men and women who have sacrificed their lives to guarantee that Americans continue to have the right to vote, it would seem that something as simple as showing a photo I.D. wouldn't be that tough of an "obstacle" to overcome.
No, Baraonda, Irresponsible Duplicity.
Me neither. But what do we do? Documents are so easy to forge these days. How about a poll tax?
And then what about places where officials are so corrupt that they encourage vote fraud?
I get depressed thinking about it.
It's a poll tax. I've read that at least one state charges $35 for a non-drivers' license ID. This discourages poor people from voting (can you say disenfranchisement?). The 24th amendment (so sayeth Wikipedia) made poll taxes, or any other fees/taxes, illegal in federal elections. That is a rational argument.
Now, we can eliminate that argument easily by making a voter ID free. At that point, it would be simply laziness that would prevent people from voting.
Just so you know, I am STRONGLY in favor of requiring IDs at the polling places.
Well, we call and write our state and federal representatives (I think I've made at least 2 dozen calls and 8 letters in 2005), and email stuff to everybody (I think I sent about 2,500 emails during the 2004 campaign). Just figure out what YOU personally can do, and stay cheerful about that. Don't struggle with what you have no personal control of; it's not healthy. Eliminate stress and live longer!
Hmm, let me guess. 29 REPUBLICANS vote yes. 21 DIMOCRATZ vote no. Unfair to people with multiple personalities or some such reason.
Why should voting be easy?
Uh-oh. Rendell is going to have to VETO this. This could actually result in fair elections where Dem locks on seats become competitive without their usual dead/illegal/multiple base.
It would indeed discourage people from casting fraudulent votes, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.