As a state trial on the legality of the new voter photo ID law in Pennsylvania is about to start, the two sides have reached a stipulation agreement on what they will argue during the case — an agreement that all but admits that voter impersonation, the only thing that photo ID could possibly help avoid, does not exist.
If they had any evidence of in-person voter fraud, they would certainly be using it in this case. But they don’t.
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
jonathenhughes
July 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So they admit that there has been no voter fraud at all, and yet they maintain that they need laws like this because voter fraud is rampant?
I think my brain cells just went into a coma.
Gvlgeologist, FCD
July 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hmmm. Then why the big push for ID laws among Repubs? Inquiring minds want to know.
I’m looking forward to the next time a right winger claims that it’s because of voter fraud. I’ll point right at this post.
(by the way, no one needs actually answer the above question. I think we all know.)
Gvlgeologist, FCD
July 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By the way, Ed, any links to the rational in “Responded Amended answer to Interrogatory 1″?
I’d love to see the PA legislator that claimed this law would hand PA to Romney on the stand answering questions as to his logic in discovery.
busterggi
July 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t see why voter id’s are necessary – all a Repub needs to do is see if a person is off-white or has any kind of accent other than southern and that person must not be allowed to vote.
left0ver1under
July 27, 2012 at 2:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, but that’s Pennsylvania.
In Arizona, some republicans think it’s perfectly okay to fill in and submit the absentee ballots of dead people.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/republican-candidate-quits-after-companion-caught-voting-while-dead/
That one republican has likely committed more voting fraud than eighty million poor, hispanic and black voters in the US combined.
Jordan Genso
July 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation with those that are in favor of voter ID laws. Their position is that it’s just common sense, so they don’t have to address the harms caused by voter ID laws, and they don’t have to address the lack of any benefits from the laws.
http://hartland.patch.com/articles/influential-republicans-disagree-with-snyder-on-voter-fraud-veto
Michael Heath
July 27, 2012 at 8:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jordan makes a great point here. This is one of those issues which illustrate how so-called common sense can drive an issue with people who lack remedial critical thinking skills to an indefensible position. In this case Voter ID supporters’ failure, avoidance, and sometimes denial to consider the cost of the benefit they think makes sense.
The benefit being a perceived improvement on validating someone’s right to vote in order to increase the integrity of an electoral outcome, an assumption we should all share. Where the cost not being considered given their inability to think clearly, is a significant decrease in the number of people who have a legitimate right to vote being suppressed or effectively denied the exercise of that right. Such suppression is particularly reprehensible given the several precedents which reveal the Constitution obligates the federal government to defend the individual and fundamental* right to vote . Where the significance is so large, in Florida’s case hundreds of thousands of voters, anyone with a brain stem and any integrity realizes the benefit far outweighs by the cost even if we ignore the Constitutional obligations.
Like the infamous McDonalds lawsuit over overly hot coffee, voter ID laws would make a great case study to teach introductory level thinkers how to work through a seemingly one-sided issue and arrive at a conclusion opposite of the one they first developed.
*I’m not a big Ted Kennedy fan, but his grilling of John Roberts during either Roberts’ Supreme Court Senate confirmation hearing or the hearing to confirm him as Chief Justice was exactly what I wish more Senators did during these hearings. Sen. Kennedy bulldogged Mr. Roberts, who repeatedly attempted to avoid conceding Kennedy’s assertion, that precedent does in fact reveal the Constitution conveys a fundamental right to vote.
Tim DeLaney
July 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why not establish the principle that a person’s sworn statement that s/he is a bona fide citizen as prima facie evidence that the person is qualified to vote?
If the penalty for voter fraud were, say, a $1000 fine, who would risk this much money in order to vote fraudulently?
If we need some security against people voting multiple times, it is simple enough to require the voter to provide his/her Social Security number. We have computers and databases and programmers, don’t we?
A witness in court, simply by virtue of giving an oath or affirmation, is accorded the prima facie presumption that s/he is telling the truth. Why should exercising the franchise be different?
d cwilson
July 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I really don’t see this law surviving a court challenge if they can’t even demonstrate a need for it.
The only question is, will the GOP be able to keep it tied up in the courts so that it’s still technically enforceable in November.
cry4turtles
July 28, 2012 at 6:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll one up you Tim and postulate that no one is willing to commit a federal offence to fraudulently vote. There’s no monetary benefit. If we were paid to vote, perhaps, but we’re not. What idiot would risk it? None.
frog
July 29, 2012 at 1:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
People could commit voter fraud, so we need a law to prevent that. Okay.
People could have accidents at intersections, so we need traffic lights at all of them. ALL OF THEM. Stop signs are no more a deterrent to an accident than actually registering to vote is a deterrent to voter fraud. Actually, not just traffic lights, but steel barriers that will only open in one direction at a time.
After all, the worst outcome of voter fraud might be that the incorrect person gets elected for a couple of years, but the worst outcome of a car crash is death. Specifically, the death of a child. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
democommie
July 29, 2012 at 10:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“The only question is, will the GOP be able to keep it tied up in the courts so that it’s still technically enforceable in November.”
This is exactly what the GOP is hoping for. If they lose in court, in, February, 2013 after winning the general election in November, 2012, then they’ve achieved what they set out to do.
drdale
July 30, 2012 at 3:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ID laws can be thought of as poll taxes since state IDs cost money. Additionally, in some locations the department of motor vehicles is not close by or they do not have convenient hours for most working people. This puts a burden, both in the sense of time an cost, on getting a state issued ID.