Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pennsylvania voter ID law struck down
The Hill ^ | January 16, 2014

Posted on 01/17/2014 9:59:46 AM PST by SMGFan

Pennsylvania’s voter ID law, among the nation’s most stringent, was struck down Friday morning by a state judge.

Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley ruled that the law, requiring almost all voters to present photo identification prior to voting, was an unreasonable burden on voters.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electionfraud; pavoterid; votefraud; voterfraud; voterid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: SMGFan; All

I’m not familiar with the law that the judge struck down, but did activist PA lawmakers possibly write the law using language that they knew would provoke any judge to strike it down? Or did the judge strike down the law because the judge is possibly an activist? Or did the judge justifiably strike down the law?

Next, note that the states have amended the Constitution to protect voting rights on the basis of race, sex, tax status and age as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. In other words, there is no constitutonal right which protects voters from not having to show a valid photo ID before voting. So the states can make constitutional laws which require voters to present valid photo ID before being allowed to vote.

Again, I don’t know the basis on which the judge struck down this law. And it’s getting too close to November for such laws to be struck down.

Remember, if patriots can elect a 2/3 conservative majority to both Houses of Congress in November then Congress will have the constitutional authority to repeal Obamacare without Obama’s signature.


21 posted on 01/17/2014 10:57:50 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Why not take a picture of the voter after he votes and put that in the book along with his signature for future ID?


22 posted on 01/17/2014 11:01:14 AM PST by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

This is not a federal case. A state judge decided it on the basis of the state’s constitution. (Or, at least, that’s the basis he cited.)


23 posted on 01/17/2014 11:05:41 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

You are waaaay too advanced for this crooked system. :-)


24 posted on 01/17/2014 11:06:53 AM PST by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan
Great. McAuliffe in Virginia. No voter ID in PA.
25 posted on 01/17/2014 11:13:02 AM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

when are Americans going to put a stop to all this? If all of us who have a “soap box” went to DC to protest maybe we could get enough people to make an impression on voters.

also why don’t our GOP reps come up with something catchy, dramatic, important, etc - ex. Contract with America. People loved that. why don’t conservatives come up with something. I’ve been thinking but nothing comes to mind.


26 posted on 01/17/2014 11:17:36 AM PST by ncpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
No, it will not stop until the legislatures in these states come out and say that this law was constitutional, and it will still be enforced forthwith.

"You've made your ruling judge, now let's see you enforce it"

27 posted on 01/17/2014 11:23:41 AM PST by Fedupwithit (Your opinion: It's all yours....don't expect me to listen to it, or even acknowledge it..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Dye their fingers like Iraq!


28 posted on 01/17/2014 11:23:44 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

The system would also ‘store’ the photograph so that it can be compared to other prospective voter photographs to check if that person has already done this at other polling places. Voter fraud would be less likely if the prospective voter was likely to be arrested right on the spot...................


29 posted on 01/17/2014 11:26:03 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
"Dye their fingers like Iraq!"

Good solution! Wonder why that was not thought of? [Maybe the object of the law was not to prevent voting twice but prevent voting once.}

30 posted on 01/17/2014 11:34:27 AM PST by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Judge Bernard McGinley should explain what he means by it being an unreasonable burden. Is it an unreasonable burden to go to get a photo for a driver’s license or a license to carry? How about a passport photo? How about all other forms of ID?

This judge is another addle-minded liberal who wants the one side to be able to continue to cheat at the polls.


31 posted on 01/17/2014 11:46:14 AM PST by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
This douche-bag judge has his 15 minutes of fame and then the USSC will squash him like the bug he is.

Possibly.

But by then we may be into the next election cycle. Thus providing more opportunity for a left-wing congress to approve more left-wing judges - who then interpret more laws with a left-wing bent, creating a socio-political climate that is more and more hostile to free-thinking people.

We are fast approaching (if not already there) a state of electoral critical mass...

32 posted on 01/17/2014 11:50:15 AM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

Good point. He should be disbarred for violating SCOTUS’ RECENT ruling.


33 posted on 01/17/2014 12:12:12 PM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Also, it’s an “unreasonable burden” for voters to vote knowing that a DemonRAT voter has nullified their vote by voting multiple times.


34 posted on 01/17/2014 12:23:44 PM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Precisely. I am 60 years old. I look much younger but not under 21. I have to show my driver’s license buy alcohol in ID everybody states. Here in Alabama I have to show it to vote or show a utility bill proving my address and proper name of the registered voter that is me. I know from several of my black republican friends that live in predominately black precincts, ID is often a wink and a nod between the voter and the roll checkers. Alabama has been purging a lot of dead voters off the rolls since republicans took the legislature in 2010 after 130 years of democrat majority.


35 posted on 01/17/2014 12:27:55 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they see themselves as presents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

It’s not about “Liberal Logic”, it’s about criminal intent by liberals.


36 posted on 01/17/2014 12:45:35 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

So the judiciary has decreed, so let it be done!

Why do we give these political hacks any more credence than the hacks in the executive and legislature? Because they wear black muumuus?


37 posted on 01/17/2014 12:49:44 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Having some small say in who gets to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

It wasn’t that stringent. In 2012 it was put on hold right after it started and we didn’t even have to show ID.


38 posted on 01/17/2014 1:04:08 PM PST by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

I live in PA. The law was passed in March 2012.

But then it was blocked by judges in October 2012 from being used in the presidential election.

It was ruled in 2012 they could ask you for an ID but you could vote without one and wouldn’t have to use a provisional ballot.

Apparently now this judge wants to block it on a permanent basis?

It’s doubly frustrating considering I firmly believe PA was one of many states stolen from Romney in 2012.


39 posted on 01/17/2014 1:11:57 PM PST by Dave346
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dave346

I always feel you gotta get close first to win by cheatin’

And Caliph Baraq won Penn in 2012 by 5.5 points, so I’m not so sure on that one.


40 posted on 01/17/2014 1:15:05 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson