Posted on 10/02/2012 7:01:43 AM PDT by reegs
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.
They should appeal that since we know who has drivers’ licenses, those people should have to show them.
Do you know the legal reasoning? I don’t have time to go read the thing right now but if you have, I would love a brief synopsis.
Yes, that was incorrect. The article states that the judge accepted the Dem argument that letting them vote but with a provisional ballot would create two classes of voters (of course, there should be only one class, the class with the ID!). Therefore, they are to be asked for ID, and if they don’t have it, are to be allowed to vote as usual anyway.
I hope this is appealed. Even if it’s due partly to a foul up in getting the photo ID’s mailed or produced, there’s got to be some other way of doing it. Otherwise, the polls are going to be stuffed with people voting fraudulently without even the moderate protection to the system provided by a provisional ballot.
Even the AP admits that voter fraud helps the dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.