PA government admits no Voter Fraud.

[SirNitram]

Link

HARRISBURG -- State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Backers of the requirement that most voters show an approved form of photo identification at the polls have said the law will prevent fraud and assure residents of the integrity of elections.

A coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is suing to stop the law from taking effect for the general election this fall. They argue it will disenfranchise legitimate voters who lack acceptable identification.

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the attorney general, declined to comment on the July 12 stipulation. Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, one of the parties contesting the law, said that by agreeing there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the parties can forgo calling witnesses to testify on that point.

The law also faces a review by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which on Monday sought documents related to voter registration and driver license rolls. The department informed Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele in the letter that it is examining whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act.

Game set match. It was all about suppressing the vote.

[Sea Skimmer]

The state did just pass a law providing free voter ID cards to anyone who wants one; and ones which can be obtained with proof of residence (mail in other words) and a social security number. That may prove enough to stop the constitutional challenge against the ID requirement unfortunately. A formal bill to repeal the ID law completely has been introduced but it will be a while before we see if it gains any ground.

[SirNitram]

The state did just pass a law providing free voter ID cards to anyone who wants one; and ones which can be obtained with proof of residence (mail in other words) and a social security number. That may prove enough to stop the constitutional challenge against the ID requirement unfortunately. A formal bill to repeal the ID law completely has been introduced but it will be a while before we see if it gains any ground.

Indeed. The fact the whole rational has been laid bare and the Brennan center study showing that it will impede voting rights even with the 'free voter ID cards' are not really part of the legal proceedings. In a sane world, they would be, but since when is the realm of lawyer sane?

[Molyneux]

Wondering how many people will keep trying to say that it's necessary to stop voter fraud.
Some people are remarkably resistant to reality.

[amigocabal]

The state did just pass a law providing free voter ID cards to anyone who wants one; and ones which can be obtained with proof of residence (mail in other words) and a social security number. That may prove enough to stop the constitutional challenge against the ID requirement unfortunately. A formal bill to repeal the ID law completely has been introduced but it will be a while before we see if it gains any ground.

Why would it be unfortunate to stop the constitutional challenge? Should not laws be crafted to be constitutional?

Without the offer of free ID, the law could effectively be a poll tax, explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

Wondering how many people will keep trying to say that it's necessary to stop voter fraud.
Some people are remarkably resistant to reality.

Who cares? Needing ID to vote is no different than needing ID to withdraw money from a savings account, or to buy beer.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why would it be unfortunate to stop the constitutional challenge? Should not laws be crafted to be constitutional?

Because it was the best bet to ensure the law was struck down, which is why the Republicans acted so quickly to try to patch the leak long after they thought nothing of passing such a blatantly illegal and unjustified law in the first place. Shows how poorly considered the entire process was; icing on the cake of them having no proof it was even remotely necessary. It may fall anyway for being such a blatant mass disenfranchisement that disproportionately affects poor minorities though, and for the state having quoted figures at the time it passed (under 1% disenfranchisement) which have now thought to be wrong by an order of magnitude (12%). The last Republican attempt to make the state gerrymandering even more insane then it already was got stuck down, so I have some faith in the courts to be rational. Its just not certain anymore.

Who cares? Needing ID to vote is no different than needing ID to withdraw money from a savings account, or to buy beer.

Anyone who gives a damn about democracy maybe. Can I declare immunity from police arrest, taxation and registering for the draft if I don't have a government issue photo ID? Of fucking course not. Your examples are retarded too, because neither of those things is a civil right, nor are they government services. Factually inaccurate too, since ID is not mandatory to buy beer if you look old enough. But hey I love the mentality that buying beer and voting are the same scale of importance, do you even vote on a consistent basis?

[amigocabal]

Why would it be unfortunate to stop the constitutional challenge? Should not laws be crafted to be constitutional?

Because it was the best bet to ensure the law was struck down, which is why the Republicans acted so quickly to try to patch the leak long after they thought nothing of passing such a blatantly illegal and unjustified law in the first place.

That is what government is supposed to do.

Shows how poorly considered the entire process was; icing on the cake of them having no proof it was even remotely necessary. It may fall anyway for being such a blatant mass disenfranchisement that disproportionately affects poor minorities though, and for the state having quoted figures at the time it passed (under 1% disenfranchisement) which have now thought to be wrong by an order of magnitude (12%). The last Republican attempt to make the state gerrymandering even more insane then it already was got stuck down, so I have some faith in the courts to be rational. Its just not certain anymore.

Who cares? Needing ID to vote is no different than needing ID to withdraw money from a savings account, or to buy beer.

Anyone who gives a damn about democracy maybe. Can I declare immunity from police arrest, taxation and registering for the draft if I don't have a government issue photo ID? Of fucking course not. Your examples are retarded too, because neither of those things is a civil right, nor are they government services. Factually inaccurate too, since ID is not mandatory to buy beer if you look old enough. But hey I love the mentality that buying beer and voting are the same scale of importance, do you even vote on a consistent basis?

The purpose of requiring ID is to make sure the person who is voting is legally allowed to vote.

[Losonti Tokash]

Every state already does that without requiring photo id or jumping through hoops to get one. Like Broken said in the other thread, this really is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

[Alyeska]

The golden gem is the fact that the PA AG has openly admitted that this was nothing more than a ploy to deliver the election to Romney.

This is blatant voter disemfranchisement. Voter fraud doesn't happen at the polls. Voter fraud happens when the elected officials try to prevent citizens from casting their vote.

[Mr Bean]

The golden gem is the fact that the PA AG has openly admitted that this was nothing more than a ploy to deliver the election to Romney.

This is blatant voter disemfranchisement. Voter fraud doesn't happen at the polls. Voter fraud happens when the elected officials try to prevent citizens from casting their vote.

And ballot stuffing by poll workers, the tradition place for voter fraud when the poll workers go down the list of everyone who's not voted yet and vote for them.

[amigocabal]

Every state already does that without requiring photo id or jumping through hoops to get one. Like Broken said in the other thread, this really is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

What methods exist for states to make sure people who vote are legally allowed to vote without requiring photo ID?

Are they similar to methods used by airlines to ensure the person with the boarding pass is the person whose name is on the boarding pass?

[Losonti Tokash]

The last time I voted, I gave them the envelope my electricity bill came in, addressed to me at my (then) current address.

[Alyeska]

Every state already does that without requiring photo id or jumping through hoops to get one. Like Broken said in the other thread, this really is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

What methods exist for states to make sure people who vote are legally allowed to vote without requiring photo ID?

Are they similar to methods used by airlines to ensure the person with the boarding pass is the person whose name is on the boarding pass?

Let's put it this way. The 2010 election was investigated for voter fraud. IE citizens voting as someone else. In the entire country they found less than 1,000 cases. Out of more than 200 million potential voters, less than a thousand cases of fraud.

PA is passing a law to supposedly combat votes such as these. Assuming there was exactly 1,000 cases of this type of fraud in the entire country, that means statistically PA had 42 cases of voter fraud.

The law is going to disenfranchise up to 186,830 voters just to stop 42 bad votes.

This law is a farce. Voter fraud of this type is statistically irrelevant. At best this law is a solution in search of a problem. At its worst it is an admitted ploy by the state GOP to manipulate the election by suppressing democratic voters.

There is NO defense of this law and any argument in its favor is willful ignorance at best and outright lying at worst.

So what is it? Are you a liar or just willfully ignorant?

[amigocabal]

Every state already does that without requiring photo id or jumping through hoops to get one. Like Broken said in the other thread, this really is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

What methods exist for states to make sure people who vote are legally allowed to vote without requiring photo ID?

Are they similar to methods used by airlines to ensure the person with the boarding pass is the person whose name is on the boarding pass?

Let's put it this way. The 2010 election was investigated for voter fraud. IE citizens voting as someone else. In the entire country they found less than 1,000 cases. Out of more than 200 million potential voters, less than a thousand cases of fraud.

PA is passing a law to supposedly combat votes such as these. Assuming there was exactly 1,000 cases of this type of fraud in the entire country, that means statistically PA had 42 cases of voter fraud.

The law is going to disenfranchise up to 186,830 voters just to stop 42 bad votes.

This law is a farce. Voter fraud of this type is statistically irrelevant. At best this law is a solution in search of a problem. At its worst it is an admitted ploy by the state GOP to manipulate the election by suppressing democratic voters.

There is NO defense of this law and any argument in its favor is willful ignorance at best and outright lying at worst.

So what is it? Are you a liar or just willfully ignorant?

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

Correct me if I am wrong; it seems to me you oppose the concept of voter ID per se, and not that the law fails to minimize any burdens on legitimate voters. Indeed, the law itself provides for free ID.

Is there any way the burdens on legitimate voters arising from a voter ID requirement can be minimized?

[Mr Bean]

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

The Democratic party contains a large majority of minorities. Asian, African America, Latino, Native Americas ect... ect. Minorities as a group are poorer, less likely to own transports and live in poorer areas. If your poor, don't own a car and live in a poor neighborhood the chances of a government office being within walking distance is very small. And if your poor your likely working a minimum wage job, such jobs have no job security. They are required by law to give you time off to go vote but they are not required for you to go spend an entire day in an office to get a free ID which is itself not free as getting the ID itself generally has fee's attached to it.

[amigocabal]

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

The Democratic party contains a large majority of minorities. Asian, African America, Latino, Native Americas ect... ect. Minorities as a group are poorer, less likely to own transports and live in poorer areas. If your poor, don't own a car and live in a poor neighborhood the chances of a government office being within walking distance is very small. And if your poor your likely working a minimum wage job, such jobs have no job security. They are required by law to give you time off to go vote but they are not required for you to go spend an entire day in an office to get a free ID which is itself not free as getting the ID itself generally has fee's attached to it.

It seems to me that if this is true, that this law merely has a disparate impact, and not a discriminatory purpose. To be sure, even a policy neutral on its face can have discriminatory purpose if it is riddled with exemptions that apply to others, but not those burdened by the policy. The Sixth Circuit noted this in Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 at 738 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2012) But there is no exemption, except one that offers free ID precisely to the class of persons who would be most burdened by this law.

[Alyeska]

Is there any way the burdens on legitimate voters arising from a voter ID requirement can be minimized?

Yes. It's called Don't Change The Law. The system right now works. The proposed changes break the system.

Easy fix. Don't change the law.

[Alyeska]

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

The Democratic party contains a large majority of minorities. Asian, African America, Latino, Native Americas ect... ect. Minorities as a group are poorer, less likely to own transports and live in poorer areas. If your poor, don't own a car and live in a poor neighborhood the chances of a government office being within walking distance is very small. And if your poor your likely working a minimum wage job, such jobs have no job security. They are required by law to give you time off to go vote but they are not required for you to go spend an entire day in an office to get a free ID which is itself not free as getting the ID itself generally has fee's attached to it.

It seems to me that if this is true, that this law merely has a disparate impact, and not a discriminatory purpose. To be sure, even a policy neutral on its face can have discriminatory purpose if it is riddled with exemptions that apply to others, but not those burdened by the policy. The Sixth Circuit noted this in Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 at 738 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2012) But there is no exemption, except one that offers free ID precisely to the class of persons who would be most burdened by this law.

There is nothing honest about this law. Pennsylvania house majority leader Mike Turzai as admitted this law is intended the deliver the election to Romney.

This law is the fucking voter fraud you should be opposing. This law is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters to change the election. The definition of voter fraud in my book. If I had my say these fucks would serve life sentences in maximum security prisons for this shit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

There are a lot of people less likely to have a non-expired photo ID who are likely to vote democrat.

1) Students. Many university students have out-of-state IDs. When you get a driver's license in a new state, you have to turn in your old one. Because university students spend 8 months in one state, and will soon move to another more than likely, they often do not do this as a matter of course. Many also lack cars, and have class and work schedules that prohibit them from going to a government office to get a voter ID. Take Arizona for example. There are only a few DVM offices in the entire phoenix metro area. None of them are near the university. Anyone who would need to get an AZ issued ID in the state would have to spend hours on a city bus to say nothing of wait times to do it, and that is if they could get there during business hours.

2) Old People. The old often have expired IDs and dont drive anymore.

3) Poor people, who are often ethnic minorities. These have already been gone over.

Correct me if I am wrong; it seems to me you oppose the concept of voter ID per se, and not that the law fails to minimize any burdens on legitimate voters. Indeed, the law itself provides for free ID.

The free ID is not the point. Having a free ID is useless if there are large burdens in obtaining it.

Is there any way the burdens on legitimate voters arising from a voter ID requirement can be minimized?

Increasing the number of government offices, or their business hours. Making things open on weekends. Making the process capable of being done over the internet or by mail. Those might help.

That said, during legislative debate on these voter ID laws, and during public statements, those who write them openly talk about using it as a means to prevent certain classes of people from voting. They then turn around and use non-existent voter fraud as a talking point. This is not a law meant to reduce voter fraud. It is a law meant to alter the legitimate results of an election by altering the voter pool. The same thing has been done in numerous other states, including restrictions on student voter registration--with the intended purpose of keeping them from voting for democrats in the election. This is part of the GOP electoral strategy.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Why would Democratic voters be less likely to be able to meet ID requirements than Republican voters? Is there some sort of stereotype about Democrats of which I am unaware?

There are a lot of people less likely to have a non-expired photo ID who are likely to vote democrat.

1) Students. Many university students have out-of-state IDs. When you get a driver's license in a new state, you have to turn in your old one. Because university students spend 8 months in one state, and will soon move to another more than likely, they often do not do this as a matter of course. Many also lack cars, and have class and work schedules that prohibit them from going to a government office to get a voter ID. Take Arizona for example. There are only a few DVM offices in the entire phoenix metro area. None of them are near the university. Anyone who would need to get an AZ issued ID in the state would have to spend hours on a city bus to say nothing of wait times to do it, and that is if they could get there during business hours.

2) Old People. The old often have expired IDs and dont drive anymore.

3) Poor people, who are often ethnic minorities. These have already been gone over.

To expand a little on this, the DMV office might not even have what you would call "normal" business hours. For example, the one in my town is only open on Thursdays, from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. The one in the next county over (in a much larger town) is open for the same hours, but on Saturday as well as Thursday. That's real convenient if you have class or work all day, let me tell you.

[Sea Skimmer]

That is what government is supposed to do.

A government is supposed to protect and serve its citizens and the common good, not scramble to adjust its attempts at voter suppression when the harm is blatantly absurdly out of proportion to any possible gain. Not that the laws defenders are now even attempting to make the argument that anything good is gained, by making no attempt to provide proof of illegal voting at all.

The purpose of requiring ID is to make sure the person who is voting is legally allowed to vote.

So you choose not to even try to attempt to address any point raised, why am I not surprised.

[Lord MJ]

I seem to recall a movie about LBJ when he called a southern governor who was rejecting integration to the Whitehouse and proceeded to read him the riot act.

I think Obama needs to do that here with PA's governor. And make it pefectly clear that if he does not get the law repealed, then at the slightest bit of evidence that he and his cronies enacted this law in order to and the election to Romney, they will all be bought up on charges so fast it will make their heads spin. And even if they are found not guilty, all of their private conversations and diliberations will be exposed for all the world to see. All their dirty secrets, made clear as day.

Too bad that will never happen.

[Dalton]

I seem to recall a movie about LBJ when he called a southern governor who was rejecting integration to the Whitehouse and proceeded to read him the riot act.

George C. Wallace. It's become known as the "Johnson Treatment". LBJ was a powerfully intimidating man. He bypassed the head games and got right into a motherfucker's face. That isn't Obama's style.

[Lord MJ]

Given the public admission that these laws are intended to win the election for Romney, what would it take for the DOJ to investigate for a criminal case against this guy and others that may be involved. Note that no actual charges need to be filed. Just the mention that the DOJ may investigate for criminal misconduct will draw national attention to the issue.

At the very least the whitehouse should conduct a series of press conferences and speeches about the issue. That will also draw national attention to it. Obama may not be good at bringing someone into his office and reading them the riot act. But he is good at making speeches. And he occupies the office of the president and has the pulpit. Beginning a campaign of very public official whitehouse addresses would go a long way to highlighting this issue and turning the public against the GOP.

[Rogue 9]

Unfortunately, the Republican spin machine would jump on that to accuse the administration of using the power of the Justice Department for political ends.