Skip to comments.Breaking - PA Judge upholds injunction to block voter ID law
Posted on 10/02/2012 7:01:43 AM PDT by reegs
Just breaking on Fox News. Looks like PA will go Obama.
Well, there goes any chance of winning PA, folks...
119% Philly turnouts again.
Appeal is possible. The GOP had better get on the stick.
Odd ruling. The judge is allowing poll workers to ask for ID, they just can’t withhold a ballot for those not providing ID. This is going to cause a major cluster muck.
Just publicly demand a recount-win or lose.
Stand firm and say NO to “liberal fascism”
If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!
Somehow I see this as the “ show down at the altar of Baal”...water being doused on the altar. God is going to bring us through DESPITE all these blockades with fire from heaven!
Counting on it!!
I’m reading elsewhere that he upheld portions of the law. He said that voters should be eligible for alternative state ID’s rather than just those issued by the Transportation dept.
I did hear something about the alternate IDs, but the giant loophole of not being able to withhold ballots makes cheating still an issue.
Seems to me that conservatives should now mount court challenges to every state law that requires use of photo identification. Since precedent now appears to have been set.
The fix was in on that one... it always was.
Any appeal?? You know, this is utter bull shiite...seems any attempt to eliminate voter fraud is stopped by Kangaroo judges.
The news that PA requires voter ID has been out there for a year now. Even with this injunction, I doubt that those ineligible to vote would want to chance getting into trouble. It’s been turned into an issue of racism and hammered home to minorities for months to tar and feather Republicans. A last minute change like this will probably not have much effect, IMO. Those who would commit fraud will probably still be intimidated.
Then why ask? Idle curiosity?
Virginia will be next!!!!!!!!!!
I live in PA, and I believe it’s all going to come down to voter turn out. Philly, Harrisburg, and York city are going to go overwhelmingly to Obama. The rest of the state will go to Romney — how heavily depends on how well the Repubs turn out the vote. The state party should be going door to door in “Romney areas” — and so far, all I’ve heard are crickets.
IF the judge’s ruling is as the radio indicates this morning, that ballots cannot be denied those without driver licenses BUT they are given Provisional ballots and their votes are not counted until the legitimacy of same are reviewed and validated, then it is a reasonable ruling. Nobody should, or can, be required to hold a driver license to vote... so long as they can prove their eligibility by some other real means (such as a passport or state-issued picture identification card as in most other states).
Having said that, I do not have the judge’s ruling in front of me and it could be a desperation measure by a BHusseinO hack. If anyone has the ruling, please let us know which way it is, THANKS!)
Meanwhile, everyone in PA please get out the vote to save America! We’re counting on you! Thanks!
Exactly - what's the point of asking for ID?
However, the injunction does say that this only applies to this next election - subsequent elections will require ID.
You got that right. This has to be one of the stupidest rulings I can imagine. What is the purpose of asking for ID if you can't use it to withhold ballots?
Do the sane american people still know what revolt and struggle for freedom means !
Fight or leave USA to the new barbaria with Obablama scums !
The judges should be judged if they betray
Expect an emergency appeal to the PA state supreme court.
Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. has ... then was appointed by a Democratic governor, Robert P Casey. Simpson was a Democrat then turned RINO
According to the AP article, the voter ID requirement has been suspended only for this election. It will still go into effect next year.
The reason: there have been a lot of problems with the voter-only ID card. People are allegedly having trouble getting the ID.
The judge was not asked to consider the constitutionality of the voter ID requirement, and did not rule on that. He simply said that the requirement was suspended for this election.
It sounds like the responsibility for this mess is squarely on whoever screwed up the implementation of the voter-only ID.
Here’s a link to the ruling itself (pdf file):
Due to voter fraud:
A GOP +1% is really -5% A GOP +4% is really -1% A GOP +7% is really +2%
AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2012, after supplemental hearing and after consideration of the oral and written arguments of counsel, it is ORDERED and DECREED as follows:
Petitioners Application for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in part. Based on the foregoing Supplemental Determination, the Respondents and their agents, servants and officers are hereby PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from:
1) Requiring that a registered elector must apply for a PennDOT product prior to the electors seeking issuance of a free DOS ID; and
2) Implementing or enforcing that part of Act 18 which amends Section 1210(a.2) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. §3050(a.2), and Section 1210(a.4)(5)(ii) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. §3050(a.4), for the general election of November 6, 2012. It is the intent of this Preliminary Injunction to extend the transition procedures described in Section 10(1) of Act 18 beyond September 17, 2012, and through the general election of November 6, 2012. Nothing in this Preliminary Injunction shall preclude the Commonwealth from following transition procedures described in Section 10(2) of Act 18 (relating to additional education efforts to those not showing proof of identification for in-person voting) for the general election of November 6, 2012. All other provisions of Act 18 remain in effect.
The Court shall conduct a status conference with counsel on Thursday, December 13, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3001, third floor, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Petitioners shall arrange for a court reporter to be present. After the conference, the Court shall issue a scheduling order pertaining to the close of pleadings, completion of discovery, and trial on the application for a permanent injunction.
So how many doors have YOU knocked on. You sit there at your computer whining about others, listening for crickets. This election is up to YOU, not others who you would blame.
So, how many neighbors, friends, relatives, and associates are you getting to the polls? So far, all I hear is crickets...
I swear, if I ever get another dog, I’m going to teach him to read, then give him a list of Federal judges to bite.
As a result, Simpson decided that for the November 6 election only, voters without appropriate photo ID could vote, but would no longer have to produce identification within six days, as their votes would be counted.If the PA vote is at all close, there would be a scramble to challenge the validity of provisional ballots (which likely would be predominantly from dems) finding which provisional ballots were cast by dead/moved/illegal/never-existed voters and getting them tossed.
Attorneys seeking to block the law from taking effect for the next election had contended that anything short of an outright injunction would result in some voters being disenfranchised.
They argued that a partial injunction would create two classes of voters, since election rules require that provisional ballots be counted not on Election Day but at a later date, at which point they could also be subject to challenges from political parties and ultimately not be counted.
With a solid GOP majority in both houses and a governor pledged to sign the bill once passed, the Pileggi bill would have accomplished the same thing as the voter ID bill with far less fuss and fanfare.
With only the two statewide electoral votes at stake in the most corrupt Democrat districts, there would have been far less reward for cheating making for more balanced contests down ticket as well.
The Democrats would have been unable to launch their normal corrupt legal challenges and delaying tactics for three reasons:
Gleason, our Quisling state GOP chair, opposed the Pileggi bill on the basis that the GOP would win all 20 this year given Obama's sorry record. 'So what?', should have been the obvious reply. If that happens, Pennsylvania won't make a difference anyway.
Now, Mr. Chairman, are you willing to resign in disgrace if you don't deliver what you bragged would be done one year ago when you blocked this bill?
The headline will be the win
You really think Pittsburgh will break right?
Steeltown union thugs? Please...
Pileggi is my state senator so there’s little I can do, but it looks like we need to run a challenger against Gleason.
Virginia is next!!!!!!
Check out what he's done his entire career
can anyone spell buttboy ?
Dominic Pileggi is a good man. I’ve had private conversations with my own state rep who thinks Gleason made a real bad call by opposing this bill.
Don’t jump to conclusions. The media rarely gets these rulings right in the moments after release.
Let cooler heads read the ruling and interpet it for us so we know the FACTS that the media is too stupid to understand.
There is a fantastic opportunity here. At each polling location, there should be a station to produce a valid state picture ID. Voters who sign a form stating that they don’t have an ID will be sent through the station to have one provided for free.
Of course after the election, the digital list of pictures will be scanned looking for duplicates and violators will be prosecuted for both perjury and vote fraud.
A simple way to solve this whole problem:
First, take a thumbprint next to the voter’s signature on the voter rolls.
Second, video record all entrances and exits to the polls.
With those simple steps, there would be no fuss, no muss and no lawsuits. And, there would be no individual mandate compelling people to buy a government I.D.
Assuming that there will be subsequent elections?
If this election goes wrong, there may not be any subsequent elections!
Reading the ruling:
1) The judge rejected the idea that it is somehow offensive to ask for an ID to vote. His concern was with disenfranchisement. Thus, poll workers CAN ask for ID.
2) The present system of issuing ID cards is inadequate to prevent disenfranchisement. However there are significant improvements in the works that eliminates this concern. The judge indicates, several times, that the PA voter ID law will apply, in full, after this general election.
3) The PA legislature had a “dry run period” the ran from the beginning of 2012 to 9/27/12. The judge in his ruling, simply extended the dry run period through the general election. Thus “an otherwise qualified elector who does not provide proof of identification may cast a ballot that shall be counted without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot.”
= = =
This is a big, but temporary loss for the GOP in PA. In the long run, it looks quite positive for the GOP. In the short run, it’s a disaster.
The judge is under the misconception that only 1-9% of PA votes are fraudulent. Poll workers MUST ask for ID, but CANNOT refuse a standard ballot.
So there will be lots of evidence of fraud for GOP poll watchers to observe, but the vote will be counted anyway. I smell a LOT of post-election lawsuits in PA.
No, the whole point is that they WON’T get provisional ballots, but regular ballots that will be counted on Election Day with all the others. A partial injunction would have given them provisional ballots, and that was what the Dem attorneys were arguing against.
if what an earlier post said about use of provisional ballots is true, then this ruling is halfway there. At the end of the election there will be a detailed list of provisional ballots that can be investigated for possible fraud. It narrows down the population for possible fraud down considerably, making such an investigation easier.
Not only that, but in a close election where provisional ballots end up mattering, such an investigation would be required and could finally expose clear examples and breadth of voter fraud.
This isn’t the best ruling, but there are definitely silver linings to it.
Ok, so post 18 (which I based my comment on) is incorrect?
Jeeze. This really is going to be a mess. I really hope that the GOP pollwatchers are on top of their games and recording whatever they can when a voter refuses to produce an ID.