LOL. Hey Danivon... Bbauska's blooper is worse than that. What if he'd said: "As long as EVERYONE has to pay the same poll tax and pass the same literacy and citizenship tests there is no inequality."

Can everyone get to the polls at equal times in Ohio? What if you have other commitments? Surely that is unfair...

The people of PA made a choice to have voter ID, and it is making it a requirement equally among Pennsylvanians. I would have a problem with PA saying only Asians, or any other ethnic group, having to show ID.

My point is that the equality of the issue must be maintained. But until a case decides that the PA law is unconstitutionally placing restrictions upon it constituents, then it stands.

The crux comes down to is it too burdensome to require everyone to have photo ID in order to vote. I think this will be a US Supreme court decision.

Are Purple and Danivon saying that people should not have to have ID?

bbauska wrote:Are Purple and Danivon saying that people should not have to have ID?

It's the current situation here, and I'm not aware of a lack of ID requirement leading to fraud allegations. There are other methods of voting fraud that have been discovered (concerning what you would call absentee ballots), but 'personation' is not common - or at least is not seen to be common.

If you are going to insist upon ID, you should consider not just the 'normal' cases, but the marginal ones. Because it's in the margins that the inequalities will come out - as per that list from the ACLU suit.

By the way, 'the people of PA' did not decide to bring in the voter ID law. It was introduced by the Legislature who, while representatives of 'the people' are not actually them. And certainly aren't all of the people (not even all of the legislature supported it).

The 'government' has decided on this law, not the 'people'.

Considering the representative form of government we have, I will stand by the statement of "people".

I do consider the margins. Are people able to get ID in PA? There is not a requirement to vote, just have ID. I would like to see ALL Absentee ballots be accompanied by ID as well. I will look at the ACLU list after work. (Busy Friday)

I must say that there is a difference between Poll taxes, Literacy testing, citizen tests et. al., and the requirement of photo ID. Are you equating them? It sounds similar to the Biden comments on "chains". Unchaining Wall Street being equated with slavery... Sound like a bunch of hyperbole and extremism.

Did you at least read the case list, bbauska?

Yes, I did. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Most of the cases are involving lack of birth certificate issues. You are able to bring two pieces of information that shows residency such as utility bill, tax bill etc. I certainly do not see that as onerous.
As for the one lady who had to drive ten miles (!) to get ID, I must say that there is more than enough time to get ten miles or have a friend, family, church or community outreach assistance group help you.
The transgendered woman that is unable to get ID would be able to provide utility bills or get a new ID before the election.

Do you think any of these requirements are onerous? Is it really that difficult to bring utility bills? Is it really that difficult to go 10 miles? Is it that difficult to get new ID because you changed your appearance? I had my driver's license that I got when I was 18 all throughout my military career. Needless to say, I gained 100 lbs, thinned hair and got glasses. I don't think I look all that similar to my ID. Was that an issue anywhere? NO. People understand physical changes in our body.

The $13 requirement for new ID was in error and the worker should have been re-educated.

http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174114&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=4&mode=2
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

How is PA treating anyone differently than any other PA voter? It is about equality.

a PA Commonwealth Court Judge has upheld the ID law on the basis that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove the law would have the effect of keeping anyone from voting.

And yes I can see the irony in that.

It is now headed to the our Supreme Court which is in an interesting pickle. Our State Supreme Court is a 7 member elected body. The current make up is 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. However, one of the Republicans Joan Orie-Melvin is currently suspended due to an on-going investigation into the use of public employees doing campaign work "on the clock". Her sister, Jane Orie, recently lost her State Senate seat of 11 years to the same scandal. So the Court is currently on a 3-3 split. So if you are one of those that believe Judges are controlled more by political affiliation then by judicial philosophies, the outcome of the case could be interesting.

My position on voter ID:

First, as to the politics of it: I refuse to believe that Republicans are pure of heart and full of nothing but egalitarian ideals while Dems are lowly scum looking to subvert democracy at every turn. It's pretty clear that more Dem voters than GOP voters will be inconvenienced by laws like PA's, and therefore it's in the GOP's narrow electoral interests to push voter ID laws and Dem's narrow electoral interests to oppose them. In my humble opinion if you can't admit as much you're [fill in the blank].

Second, as to the merits of it: I don't know how big the problem is that voter ID would solve; I doubt it's zero or even close, but I suspect it's a lot smaller than it once was (in the days of machine politics in places like New Jersey). In any case, the potential is there and thus voter ID has, at least theoretically, some benefit. The cost, however, in the inconvenience, particularly to a limited number of demographics (inequality!) is not inconsiderable. The potential for non-random disenfranchisement is also not zero. Ergo, for me, the answer is to implement the law but with a REALLY long lead-in time like eight years. Even disorganized Dems should be able to get their act together and help whoever needs help if given enough time. Also: there should be maximum simplicity to the process in all ways.

This, friends, is what's called a compromise. C-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e.

Purple, I agree with you on the big picture. This should not be hard to fix in a functioning democracy.

On the details, your statement:

It's pretty clear that more Dem voters than GOP voters will be inconvenienced by laws like PA's

What's the evidence for this? I know it is the conventional wisdom, but I've never seen the proof. I wonder whether there are just as many disorganized Republicans without readily available documentation as there are Democrats. Are we all just stereotyping?

I don't think so. The older and poorer you are the more likely you are to vote Dem. Also, the older and poorer you are, the less likely you have photo ID already. That's not "stereotyping". Do you need me to research and document this? I saw something about the PA numbers this morning.

BTW, a voting fraud problem that's probably a LOT bigger than the types that would be caught by the PA law is the problem of people voting in more than one district. This is very easy to do when you own two homes. Gee, I wonder why the GOP isn't calling for that problem to be addressed?

Purple wrote: I saw something about the PA numbers this morning.

Be very careful about those numbers Purple. I posted about it upthread. Most of the numbers that have been given out are very weak. As I said, I posted upthread about how the one list of 750,000+ names without ID was flawed because it didn't take into consideration minor differences in names.

Vivian Applewhite (the lady who brought the case against the voter ID law in PA) got an ID in plenty of time. Good thing it was not too hard for her.

Is this really what our society has come to? People are not required to show personal responsibility? Was it really something that needs a lawsuit, or should people just get the ID...

It is not that hard people...

bb

Is this really what our society has come to? People are not required to show personal responsibility? Was it really something that needs a lawsuit, or should people just get the ID...

The legitimacy of the process is very important for healthy democracies. I have no problem with the idea of voter IDs, but if the process can't be systemized in such a way as to ensure that no one is disenfranchised, or forced to spend money to vote (to get the ID) then a rethink is required. Evidence indicates that voter fraud, at least of the false identity kind, is very limited.
In order to fix this vanishingly small imperfection, the legitimacy of the whole process shouldn't be brought into question.
Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws and gerrymandering are all issues that have delegitimized democractically elected governments. Generally nations have moved to create independent insittuions who's sole purpose is to conduct the elections processes in a netural, unbiased fashion.
I imagine a neutral commission working on only the problem of voter IDs could bring about a satisfactory resoltuion in a few years, without the taint of bias or corruption. Any government elected where neutral observers might point to an attempt to limit democratic participation as a way they managed to get elected doesn't govern with legitimacy.

Do you think the PA voter ID law meets your requirements of acceptability? I would be interested in hearing your opinion, RickyP.

I agree that Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws are a problem. Same the redistricting.

bbauska, I just reread the law. And I don't have a huge problem with it....
However I do beleive there is a significant problem with the impletmentation of the law and the optics of the law becasue of the time table for implementation.
First: The one problem I may have: if people are claiming that securing an ID costs money, then there should be a free "voters ID available". I'm not sure if this is the case
Second: The claims that it is difficult for many people to get ID shouldn't be easily dismissed. What seems reasonable to one person, may seem unreasonable to another. If this was a course of action that was necessary, it should have been enacted imediately after the last election and a full three years be given for people to get ID. Three years, Now that would seem to be a reasonable enough time for anyone.
Third: The boasting by the Pennsylvania majority leader that this would win Pennsylvania for Romney... It strikes me that partisan benefit shouldn't be the purpose of better election laws. If there is partisan benefit to be had, and who would be a better judge of that then the State Majority Leasder, then perhaps the current judge has erred in not allowing an injunction?

The importance of legitimacy in any election is fundamental to the health of a democratic society. The State Senators comments alone are a sick reminder of Jim Crow Laws. (Where, for example, voters had literacy tests, with unequal standards for black and white voters.) If the voter ID law stands and Romney wins the state by a small number, the legitimacy of the election would be thrown into question...
When people stop believing in the institutions of democracy, because they believe they've been gamed, then things start to fall apart.
For that reason alone, it would be wise to put an injunction on the law until after this election, giving people an unreasonably long time to get their ID. 2 years till midterms?