Opponents of Pennsylvania's new voter ID will make their case Thursday before the state Supreme Court.
There's no time frame for a ruling from the court - but the Nov. 6 General Election is fast approaching.
The Supreme Court is composed of three Republican and three Democratic justices (a seventh judge was suspended while she faces criminal charges). A 3-3 tie would affirm the decision of the lower court, according to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report.
Commonwealth Court in August.
Supporters say the law will prevent voter fraud and imposes the same photo ID standard required in many common circumstances.
Challengers say the law is designed to disenfranchise poor and elderly voters who often support Democratic candidates. They cite as evidence state Rep. Mike Turzai's declaration that the law will allow Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania.
A key question in the Supreme Court case will be how strictly courts should scrutinize voting rules, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer report.
Voters can now at PennDOT driver's license centers so they can comply with the law. As of Friday, PennDOT had issued only 7,226 IDs for voting purposes.
A few weeks ago, a federal three-judge panel ruled that a similar voter-ID law in Texas discriminates against poor and minority voters. In a "friend of the court" brief filed against the Pennsylvania law, a group of law professors argued that federal courts have struck down less stringent laws in three other states, Missouri, Georgia and Wisconsin, according to this editorial.
There is no reason why this needs to go into effect today. Why can't this wait until December to take effect, thereby giving everyone time to get a new ID before the next election. PS: It's obvious you do not have much experience with the elderly when you throw around careless statements like this. One day, you will be old. I suggest getting to understand what that will be like so you can prepare yourself.
AMEN! (oops, that might sound too religious for some posting here.)
As for the bogus "IDs are needed for so many other things" argument: You specifically mention credit cards. Not all uses of credit cards require an ID (ordering something online, for example). Additionally, using a credit card is not a constitutional right while voting is. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, gambling at the Sugar House, flying on a plane and the littany of other "times you need ID" examples that those in favor of the ID laws keep parading out are NOT constitutional rights. Voting is. That is the difference. THAT is why I don't think we should be rushing an ID law into place and certainly not in the year of a Presidential election. But that goes deep into the heart of the reason it's being done now an not (for example) when Corbett would be up for re-election.
And in-person SAT fraud is probably 1000 times more common (or more, likely) than in-person voting fraud. In-person SAT fraud will get you kicked out of the test, and the person you took it for will have to take it again later (may even be barred). In-person voting fraud is a federal felony punishable by jail - and there's hugely less incentive for anyone to take that risk for 1 vote; while students (and parents especially!) will pay people (other students) thousands of dollars to get little Johnny into the "right" college by acing the test.
This new requirement does not affect one party more than the other. It is a sound idea that makes sense for all. It is a free process. If you wish to accomplish it, you will. There are people who spend months, maybe years, studying to obtain their citizenship so that they may have the right to vote. I truly admire those that do. Those of you that won’t spend a few hours out of your day to obtain / maintain your right to vote disgust me.
Each county has some selective rules for voting including the ballot mechanism.. The one where I vote requires the signature of the intended voter next to the signature of the individual as registered. Faking, copying a signature while an inspector is watching isn't easy, especially knowing that it is very likely someone in the voting room is likely to know the "real" registered voter. So that makes it a highly unlikely place to commit fraud. So this new law has changed the rules for persons already registered to vote, if it places an immediate burden or effectively denies a vote to a registered voter it is unconstitutional. Thus, the elderly, the citizen without a PennDot license, the physically handicapped, the military, the retired military whose Federal ID does NOT have an expiration date, like my wife's or mine. All have an extra hardship to endure because partisan elected officials have imposed new sanctions on certain classes of citizens with the INTENT of denying or inhibiting the constitutional right to vote to those registered voters who are not likely to vote for the candidate that is the choice of the political party in power.
Glad to see he has come around. The former Republican base has largely abandoned this current Republican party.
Best online store Best quality, Best reputation , Best services ---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35 ---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35 ---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45 ---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36 ---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20 ---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---**** ---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---**** ++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++ ku9
Best online store Best quality, Best reputation , Best services ---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35 ---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35 ---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45 ---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36 ---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20 ---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---**** ---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---**** ++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++ uk99
Do you know why??? As Bill Clinton reminded us, sometimes the answer is as simple as arithmetic. So let's do the math: According to a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Adelson will get $2 billion in tax savings from Romney in return for his support. And it will be paid for by every taxpayer reading this blog, so pass the word QUICKLY. If Obama wins, everyone pays their fair share of taxes...including Mr. Adelson! Tell me... WHICH ONE IS MORE FAIR FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES? WHICH ONE CAN YOU AFFORD? Americans cannot afford to live the Romney-Ryan lifestyle without having the same personal wealth. We can DREAM...but we know that it's not reality. Romney is still dreaming.
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-appointments-to-ambassador-exceed-fathers-clintons/ Or that 4 out of the top 50 donors went on to serve on (largely unpaid) citizens advisory boards or council appointments? Bush, again, did it by the hundreds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902519.html Or is it that business owners who stood to benefit from the policies Obama campaigned on (funding hybrids and public transportation infrastructure) raised money for that campaign, and then benefited when those policies were ultimately enacted? That's hardly a newsworthy revelation.
Obama is a cult of personality with absolutely no accomplishments - other than convincing people to vote for him - to his credit before becoming President! If you want to look at tax returns, look at the Obamas and how LITTLE they gave to others before they started to play hard ball in politics. Talk about your elitists, holding onto whatever they can! The Romneys have given MILLIONS in just the past two years! There is nothing in the Romneys' tax returns aside from success in business and Economic Leadership! Something sorely lacking from President Obama ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-charitable-donations-mormon-church-2012-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-charitable-donations-2012-7