Posted on 01/17/2014 6:43:12 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A state judge has struck down the law requiring Pennsylvania's voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley said the requirement that was the centerpiece of Pennsylvania's embattled 2012 voter identification law places an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfmz.com ...
Democrat elected.
And while we're at it, stop infringing on my fundamental right to buy beer. Old enough to be a grandfather, and they card me to make sure I'm old enough. Don't you have to be 18 to vote? How do we know you're 18?
Ignore and impeach.
I’m sure they have their timing right to affect 2014 elections. This is sooooo wrong on sooooo many levels.
What’s the problem? Philadelphia has 109% voter turnout without requiring ID.
Bad votes can do much more damage collectively, but the odds that a single vote will make a difference is slight, because so few elections are decided by only one vote. It happens, though. My point is that if showing an ID is too burdensome, or “intimidating” a requirement for voting, it’s also too burdensome, or intimidating, to require for gun purchases. There is a right to vote, and there is a right to buy guns, and criminals and illegal aliens aren’t supposed to do either one. (So, you’ve got to check, right?)
From Article 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
Commonwealth Court
Section 4.
The Commonwealth Court shall be a statewide court, and shall consist of the number of judges and have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.
- make this voter law outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Many Judges are elected in Washington State as well but they always run unopposed and no one knows much about any of them except for what is written in a voter guide which of course is written by them.
Election of judges is a joke.
There should be citizen panels for judicial oversight that are elected who are tasked to review judicial performance and have the power to initiate recall or impeachment proceedings.
Tar and feathers would work too.
Democrat.
But party affiliation isn't anywhere near as important as the contents of one's nice fat NSA file, right Justice Roberts?
Yes.
Would a bus load (say 50 people) each voting once in a dozen precincts throughout the day have any effect?
Last go around there were multiple reports of bus loads showing up at poles across the nation. And oddly enough some precincts had voter turnouts of over 110%, 95+% of which all voted for the same candidate...
Hmmmmmmmm. Suppose each precinct had the ability to issue voter ID on the spot?
Any munchkin could walk in, assert they are Milicent Altavakaka, have their photo and thumb print taken on the spot and be issued a voter ID card right then and there.
Proof positive they voted.
Of course, if facial recognition software and/or thumb prints prove they voted in multiple precincts, well, that would be very bad for them.
Everyone has a right to vote.
No one has a right to cheat.
Good point. However, while the Second Amendment applies to confirm that the right to keep and bear arms applies to all humans, as an expression of the natural right of self defense. It does not create that right, it merely attempts to make clear that it cannot be taken away (current efforts notwithstanding).
However, the right to vote is established in the Constitution, and is not the same kind of “natural right” of all people by virtue of being alive.
If you are not a citizen, you cannot vote (yet), or if you are not of age, you cannot vote. If you are a felon, you cannot vote.
However, a non-citizen, a child, and a felon, should still have the right to self-defense.
I know that is not the law now, but I think there is a distinction between a “natural right” and a Constitutionally created one. Whether anyone is consistent on that point is another matter.
Therefore, I think you make a good point.
how many FR are going to law school?
remember judges generally come from prosecutor offices. ESPECIALLY federal judges. There are of the government, by the government and for the government.
If we want to change the judges we have to purge law schools as a sanctuary for communists and socialists.
And since you are about to ask, no, we did not approve recreational pot use here.
it is professional suicide to oppose a sitting judge.
judges protect judges.
election fraud is job security for these judges.
merrit retention is a farce.
I’d almost be willing, while these pernicious leftist court decisions are pending, to pass a law that requires extensive background checks following the voting of someone without an I.D. If it’s determined that the voter is ineligible to vote, or is not the person they claimed to be, a felony charge be brought against them immediately.
We must create severe consequences for voter fraud. As it is, there is almost no deterrent for doing so, and the trail of evidence is almost non-existent.
Vote early and often.
No, the Supreme Court has already upheld voter ID laws, so we just need to keep appealing and get rulings like this thrown out. They’re just stalling for time with crap like this.
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.