Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just read on twitter that the Pennsylvania voter ID Law (Original Post) greenymac Sep 2012 OP
Here's a link... greenymac Sep 2012 #1
It is going to go down because there is no way that PA can certify that "liberal access" to voter ID yellowcanine Sep 2012 #2
The vote count was interesting... SoapBox Sep 2012 #3
Does that mean... qwlauren35 Sep 2012 #4
The kicked it back down to the asshat Cosmocat Sep 2012 #5

yellowcanine

(35,699 posts)
2. It is going to go down because there is no way that PA can certify that "liberal access" to voter ID
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:02 PM
Sep 2012

can be guaranteed before November. I read an article in the WP a couple of days ago detailing the experience of one woman who has been voting for years trying to get a PennDot ID. She got it eventually but the process is cumbersome to say the least. Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to make hay in court with her as a witness.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
3. The vote count was interesting...
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:13 PM
Sep 2012

6 judges...4 voted to send it back down for review and 2 voted against. The against are Democrats (3 on court) and felt that the law should have been invalidated then and there.

A bit of cut and paste from the link: (SEE link at end)

"The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin [to prohibit or restrain by an injunction] the law.

The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which, in testimony before the Supreme Court, appeared not to be the case.

If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced...that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.

Two Democratic justices dissented, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.

The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion."

This link, has a GOOD DESCRIPTION of what was going on during the testimony before their Supreme Court:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-voter-id_n_1881438.html

Cosmocat

(14,566 posts)
5. The kicked it back down to the asshat
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 07:15 PM
Sep 2012

who upheld it even though the state signed an affidavit saying it could not and was not going to try to prove actual voter fraud.

Not good news.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Just read on twitter that...