Photo IDs Required to Vote

**JasonMcElroy** · 08-28-2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by hkp

Is there a user on this site with a zip code in his username who isn't completely awful?

I am starting to suspect they are all bots/scripts employed by the site to stir up conversation.

Jason

**OffenseTaken** · 08-28-2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry19127

The faux outrage over photo ID is posted in the liberal dying Philly rags & mainstream media every single f*&*g day but not a mention of this by the national outlets. Anyone remember Kenyatta Johnson?

I agree that there's been faux outrage, like over Mike Turzai's comments, but there's room for genuine outrage over the ineptitude in implementing this. It's been thoroughly embarrassing.

**Naveen** · 08-28-2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

I agree that there's been faux outrage, like over Mike Turzai's comments, but there's room for genuine outrage over the ineptitude in implementing this. It's been thoroughly embarrassing.

What makes you think the outrage has been "faux"?

**OffenseTaken** · 08-28-2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Naveen

What makes you think the outrage has been "faux"?

Whenever one guy on one side says one thing, and some people on the other side interpret it in a ridiculously skewed and one-sided manner, I have to question the sincerity of their hurt feelings. "Which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania," "Polish death camp," "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," "I don't want to tell you what the astroturf was for," blah blah blah.

I also think the charge that voter-ID is bringing back Jim Crow is disingenuous, when any literate adult should see the fundamental difference between the two. It's another cynical attempt on the part of the more-intelligent to whip up frenzy among the less-intelligent. It's only slightly more depressing when right-wingers do this.

**Naveen** · 08-28-2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

Whenever one guy on one side says one thing, and some people on the other side interpret it in a ridiculously skewed and one-sided manner, I have to question the sincerity of their hurt feelings. "Which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania," "Polish death camp," "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," "I don't want to tell you what the astroturf was for," blah blah blah.

But I don't think what Turazi said has been interpreted in "a ridiculously skewed and one-sided manner". It would only be skewed if Turzai actually believed voter fraud was so pervasive that it results in Democratic wins. But no one looking at the data on the number of cases of voter fraud and comparing that with the margin of victory for Democrats in the state of PA could say those victories came from fraud.

So the only way you could say that the state would suddenly turn Republican would be if you were suggesting Democrats won't be able to vote.

Unless of course Turzai has actually never looked at the data, in which case he's a moron. Or he decided he'd pander to an audience of idiots who haven't seen the data either and actually believe Obama can only win through fraud. In which case he's just "spinning the ****", as Bob Brady would say, in which case I could care less of his political opponents do the same thing.

I also think the charge that voter-ID is bringing back Jim Crow is disingenuous, when any literate adult should see the fundamental difference between the two. It's another cynical attempt on the part of the more-intelligent to whip up frenzy among the less-intelligent. It's only slightly more depressing when right-wingers do this.

I think the voter id law is in the same spirit as Jim Crow laws like poll taxes. The purpose is to keep certain demographics from voting.

**mixiboi** · 08-28-2012, 05:18 PM

So anyway...I thought I go by and check on the PENNDOT Arch st location and see if the new law and ID brought an uptick of people out:

It looks like it, If I was a journalist I could have write multiple stories from what I saw in the 30 mins bit I was there.

*The item that MOST people where missing when they came to the location was proof of residency...

*One person came in because their ID expired in October and they wanted to get it renewed so they can vote. But then this came out: AN ID is valid for voting 12 months past the expiration date is the gist of that conversation. There is a fact that is causing more headaches then it should.....

The person still waited in that busy DMV anyway...

**3rd&Brown** · 08-29-2012, 07:56 PM

I say, good for all of those people. And F the Republicans.

**ArcticSplash** · 08-30-2012, 06:05 AM

Voter ID will likely not do much to stop me from voting at every polling station where someone has my name registered because I doubt the signature books will be carefully compared down to that level of detail.

If my name was Sean Gallagher for instance, I could probably vote 50 times in Kensington and Fishtown easy. Using another ID.

**annie** · 08-30-2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by mixiboi

It looks like it, If I was a journalist I could have write multiple stories from what I saw in the 30 mins bit I was there.

New voter IDs roll out in Philadelphia

Emma Jacobs was there but tweeted that PennDOT eventually kicked her out. Love her story though. 98-year-old Julia Elizabeth Jones sounds adorable.

**seand** · 08-30-2012, 12:12 PM

So if the point was to stop people hypothetically voting with multiple registrations, now they have ID's that let people vote without a birth certificate, only proof of address (a bill or other piece of "official" mail). Which means even though people who know to go wait for this new picture ID are going to have special voting picture ID's that are no more secure than the old system with the signatures in the book (show a real ID the first time you vote).

So even less actual protection from someone registering fraudulently but a bureaucratic mess that is guaranteed to catch up a bunch of people for this one election disenfranchising them. And then in the future we will have all these people with official looking state ID's that yes say they are for "voting only" but I am sure will be used to commit fraud with. If identity fraud or getting official looking ID because you are un-documented is your goal, these voting only ID's will probably be accepted at a lot of places anyway. And all you need is a bill establishing residencey.

So people who are surprised by the new rule in Nov. largely get disenfranchised but actual security is weakened at a huge expense. Brilliant.

**Litter Box** · 08-30-2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by seand

So if the point was to stop people hypothetically voting with multiple registrations, now they have ID's that let people vote without a birth certificate, only proof of address (a bill or other piece of "official" mail). Which means even though people who know to go wait for this new picture ID are going to have special voting picture ID's that are no more secure than the old system with the signatures in the book (show a real ID the first time you vote).

So even less actual protection from someone registering fraudulently but a bureaucratic mess that is guaranteed to catch up a bunch of people for this one election disenfranchising them. And then in the future we will have all these people with official looking state ID's that yes say they are for "voting only" but I am sure will be used to commit fraud with. If identity fraud or getting official looking ID because you are un-documented is your goal, these voting only ID's will probably be accepted at a lot of places anyway. And all you need is a bill establishing residencey.

So people who are surprised by the new rule in Nov. largely get disenfranchised but actual security is weakened at a huge expense. Brilliant.

I doubt if the state could have been more inept if they tried. FUBAR

**mixiboi** · 08-30-2012, 06:34 PM

And while they waste millions of dolars on this..Our road and Bridges and Transit systems crumble...

**2happy4u** · 08-30-2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by mixiboi

And while they waste millions of dolars on this..Our road and Bridges and Transit systems crumble...

is that trillion gone already???

**annie** · 09-20-2012, 02:34 PM

Chew on THAT, Daryl Metcalfe! County to issue its own voter IDs | Blogh

Haha! Well played, Allegheny County.

**seand** · 09-20-2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by annie

Chew on THAT, Daryl Metcalfe! County to issue its own voter IDs | Blogh

Haha! Well played, Allegheny County.

Oh dear. Thats ridiculous. So does Nutter have the legal capacity to pull the same move, order CCP to start issuing community-college voting ID's to non-students, or did the loophole somehow exclude "cities of the First Class"?

**annie** · 09-20-2012, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by seand

did the loophole somehow exclude "cities of the First Class"?

Nope, no mention of cities of the First Class.

**annie** · 09-20-2012, 04:34 PM

Montco may issue voter IDs through county nursing home

State Department spokesman Ron Ruman described the move as legal, but inappropriate. State law does not restrict colleges or government-run senior centers from issuing IDs to unaffiliated people. But, said Ruman both types of institutions face risks by issuing IDs far and wide.

"The clear intent of the law is that college IDs would be for students of that college or certainly someone with a direct connection to that college - same thing with a care facility," he said. "Our contention is that anyone who needs and ID can get one at a PennDOT center."

That said, the State Department has no immediate plans to challenge Montgomery County's action should it be approved, Ruman said.

**mixiboi** · 09-21-2012, 10:58 AM

Ugh...Meanwhile:

Voter ID Pennsylvania: Supreme Court Rules Lower Courts Must Review Voter ID Law | Breaking News for Black America

Pennsylvania Judge Urged by ACLU to Bar Voter ID Law - Businessweek

**seand** · 09-21-2012, 11:23 AM

Right. There are two ways to interpret the Supreme Court decision.
1. "Commonwealth Court you need to review the evidence and stop implementation if there is proof of concrete examples of individuals actually being disenfranchised" (which they already basically found but said wasn't unconstitutional in the first go-round)

2. "You can uphold it but there is no way you are going to make us high-profile elected judges be left holding the bag in front of the media for some instances of actual disenfranchisement that will no doubt found"

The latter is the Governor's preferred interpretation.

**OffenseTaken** · 09-28-2012, 12:43 AM

The art of voter turnout: If America had compulsory voting, would Democrats win every election? | The Economist

Perhaps half of all those without identity cards were not likely to vote anyway, says Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College, a pollster and political sage. Among the rest of the population, the idea that Republicans are trying to suppress black and low-income votes has energised the Democratic base like “rocket fuel”, to quote the chairman of the state Democrats, Jim Burn. In short, the voter ID law could end up being a net positive for the Democrats.

I smile when I read this, since I said upthread that whatever the motives behind this law (snoozefest), the Democrats could easily turn it to their advantage if they started being proactive about it. Perhaps it's turning out that way.

Also check out the long quote from Darryl Metcalfe, surprisingly dickish even for those of us who read PoliticsPA now and then.

_