Pennsylvania Judge Declares Voter ID Law Illegal

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/ ... er-id-law/

Do you agree with the judge's ruling?

Putting aside the politics, the legal argument that is commonly presented is whether the total cost of obtaining a photographic identification is a "poll tax" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States) ) ? "Poll tax" meant you had to pay to vote, so that poor people (probably mostly black people) could be excluded from voting.

Quoted: "In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution".

The photographic identification today in Pennsylvania is $20-30 ( http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/fees/index.shtml ), plus, there could be ancillary costs will getting to the DMV.

Quoted: "In 1917 the Poll tax to vote was the equivalent of $18.22"

Does the say $25-$35 license fee constitute a poll tax, and the law should be deemed unconstitutional based on the 1966 SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)decision?

The whole Photo ID was to combat voter fraud, a concept that has not been proven in all the states where voter ID laws were overturned.

In the case of the PA law, it is just another nail in Tom Corbett's coffin, as he has been the only governor here, other than Milton Shapp, who is nothing but a crony to big business, in particular, the Koch Brothers.

As for corrupt governments, it's a toss-up between PA, NJ, FL, and IL.

"Voter Fraud" does not have to proven. The burden is on the judge to show that the law violates the constitution.

Saying "voter fraud has never been proven, therefore the motivation to pass the law is unfounded", does not address whether the law is constitutional.

"Improper motivation" is not codified in the law as a grounds to rule a law unconstitutional.

the judge who made the ruling did say that since in person voter fraud is nearly non-existent, there was no compelling national security interest in keeping the voter ID law, which presents a barrier to the right to vote.

I was shocked when I turned 18 and went to vote for the first time and was not asked for any type of ID at the voting center. You just walk in and tell them who you are, and they take your word for it. Committing voting fraud would be extremely easy! One-person-one-vote is the basis of democracy, so why are they making it so easy for dishonest people to cast multiple votes?

That being said, I have always been in favor of voter ID laws in general (although I don't know the specifics of this Pennsylvania law). If getting a photo ID is so difficult that it keeps people from voting, then they should make it easier to get a photo ID, but not requiring any type of ID to vote just seems to be asking for fraud.

The other issue with the PA voter law is also a religious issue. The second largest population of old-order Amish and Mennonites live in PA. While it is not so much of an issue with Mennonites, it is a big issue with the old-order Amish, who take the commandment "Thou shalt not make a graven image of thyself" literally.

I think it should be called into attention that a great number of these voter ID laws came into being only after Obama's first Presidential victory. I think the whole purpose of this was to discourage the poor and minorities to vote, in order to deny the President reelection. Well, it failed, and those idiot laws can unravel now.

This is copy/pasted from the PA Dept. of Transportation website.

I wonder how quickly these people would get their photo id's to receive welfare, food stamps or free Obamaphones. I live in PA and I needed a photo ID to rent a carpet shampoo machine from Home Depot. Where is the liberal outrage? If the liberals put half the effort into getting people ID's as they do in fighting it, EVERY CITIZEN of voting age would have one. The judge really got it wrong: voter photo ID is not a voter suppression tool, the IRS is.

Renting a carpet shampoo machine is not a right, but voting is. Huge difference.

I wanted an id and due to my state's strict requirements it took me almost a year before I could get one. Most of the things you needed to get an id were things I didn't already have and couldn't get without having an id.

If you put it that way, the biggest difference I see is that Home Depot places more value in protecting their carpet machines than you do in protecting the sanctity of our vote.



Government, by definition is an inefficient bureaucracy, which moves at glacial speed. Which is why I find it so astounding that people are so eager to have them take over our health care.

That implies keeping undesirables from voting. Again, it's a right that should not be impeded. If you must have ID's to vote, let the state give them to all voters at tax payer expense upon registration.

It wasn't their slowness that made it take so long but that I couldn't obtain enough proof of identity to get an id. In NY you need 6 points to get an id. They have a list of varying things to prove your identity and each thing is assigned a number of points. Most are related to work, welfare, school, and banking. That means if you don't work, aren't on welfare, don't go to school, and don't have a bank account you may have a really hard time getting an id in NY.

I only ended up getting it when I got diagnosed with cancer and someone helped me get Medicaid. My Medicaid card gave me enough points to finally go get my id. My old id that was expired for nearly a decade was apparently good enough for the welfare but at the dmv your id has to be expired less than 2 years to counts as points for a new one.

Yes. The State of PA did not make photo ids readily and cheaply available to all. So the law prevented people from voting.

ruveyn

Amen.