Pennsylvania Judge Upholds Voter ID Law - NYTimes.com: Agree?

by Heisenberg Posted 2012/08/15 16:02:14

Related Topics: Obama, Democrat, Election, Student, College, Democrats, President Obama, Pennsylvania, Re-election, Injunction, Voter Id, Id, harm, Judge, students

Read More

98 votes
Read all 227 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Agree	93 votes	95%
	Disagree	5 votes	5%

THECAUCUS.BLOGS.NYTIMES.COM reports:
A judge refused to grant an injunction on a new voter identification law that Democrats say could harm President Obama's re-election chances by unfairly targeting minorities, college students and others in Pennsylvania.

+19

Add a comment above

Heisenberg 2012/08/15 16:04:24

Agree

+18
PA offers FREE ID's to anyone who wants one.

Opposing voter ID is about promoting voter fraud.

Our current administration sues states enacting common-sense legislation because they benefit from voter fraud.

We have an executive branch that promotes a violation of the constitution and their leadership should be prosecuted.
>> See Replies

More polls by Heisenberg

luigi1- in god we trust 2012/08/16 12:07:17

Agree

I agree but the ACLU disagrees. This could be labled racist.

reply
MrsJJS to luigi1-... 2012/08/18 06:13:47

Anyone who says this is a racist act are basically saying that people of color are incapable of obtaining photo ID because they are either too ignorant or they’re prohibited from doing so…both of which are untrue.

It’s hardly cost prohibited- The $13.50 fee for acquiring an Identification Card will be waived for individuals completing the Oath/ Affirmation Voter ID form. And there’s like 70 odd centers across the state.

reply
Andrew 2012/08/16 09:35:27

Agree

+1
Even my Democrat friends at work support voter ID laws. The only ones who don't approve are those who wished to swing elections by fraud!

reply
gary 2012/08/16 08:22:36
cynsity to gary 2012/08/16 13:36:46

yeah well every other nation in the world also protects its boarders with the business end of a high powered fire arm.... only the USA is seen as inhumane and racists for wanting to do the same.

reply
commissioner 2012/08/16 07:24:15

Disagree

Voter ID Laws are the direct opposite of democracy. So, the US Dept of Justice will fight it and then overturn it, like they did with all those other states' voter ID laws.

reply
Defend ... to commiss... 2012/08/16 10:31:20

America is a Constitutional Republic

reply
redhorse29 2012/08/16 07:12:08

Agree

+1
Yes

reply
miller51550 2012/08/16 03:55:45

Agree

+1
At last an HONEST JUDGE not in the DemoRATS and OBAMA'S POCKETS.

Expect HOLDER and his DOJ to overturn this decision.

reply
Tom 2012/08/16 03:21:09

Agree

+2
"PA offers FREE ID's to anyone who wants one. " Thank you Art ;-)

reply
ruru 2012/08/16 01:21:06

Agree

+2
No reason not to show I.D. unless you are trying to hide something.

reply
4570GOVT 2012/08/16 01:01:05

Agree

+1
BRAVO !

reply
marcuss LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS 2012/08/16 00:37:22

Agree

+2
I live in Pa and we are a RED STATE after being a BLEW STATE for a long long time. Things here are getting better and this is just one example.

I dont see Pa ever becoming a DEMOCRAP state again.

reply
Broddy 2012/08/16 00:08:20

Agree

+2
A judge that actually forms a Judgement based on the Law, See California that's how the rest of America does it!

reply
handeman 2012/08/15 23:27:09

Agree

+3
About time

reply
Maddog 2012/08/15 22:17:52

Agree

+1
I'm sure Obama's criminal attorney general, Eric Holder, will wish to weigh in on this!

reply
Fef 2012/08/15 21:55:58

Agree

+4
I had to show my ID to get a players reward card in Vegas... why not for something important like Democracy?

Those opposing Voter ID want to make it easy for people to cheat -- guess which party they belong to.

reply
Lanikai 2012/08/15 21:47:10

Agree

+3
I have to show an ID for most aspects of my life. Voting is a privilege that SHOULD require we prove we are legally here, and registered in the correct place, and only vote once.

reply
RobHom 2012/08/15 21:17:50

Agree

+3
Wow....imagine that....having to show ID to prove who you are so you can vote!!

reply
Biki 2012/08/15 21:03:55

Agree

+3
Why is this such a hard concept to accept?? You want to vote...prove you are who you say you are...done. I have yet to see one person whine about this at any voting station I have been to since it was implemented in my state. It really isn't as big of a deal as some cheating democrats want to make it out to be. If you don't want to show an ID to vote, then don't show up.

reply
Bob S 2012/08/15 20:36:45

Agree

+3
My old home state is finally getting some wisdom. Born in Philly many many years ago and I'm begining to be proud of my state once again. Sort of paraphrasing the about to be former first lady.

reply
sharkhead 2012/08/15 20:09:26

Agree

+5
God bless PA.

reply
tom C 2012/08/15 19:31:45

Agree

+4
YES!!!!

reply
Iamfree 2012/08/15 19:22:51

Agree

+4
They are a sovereign state with the right to decide how to conduct their elections. It is not unreasonable to require that someone prove that they are who they say they are when they come to their voting station.

reply
One of Y'shua's,דָּנִיֵּאל 2012/08/15 19:20:19

Agree

+2
Here that SUPREME COURT of PENNSYLVANIA...the LOWER COURT JUDGE GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, obama et al

reply
Ev Rom 2012/08/15 18:51:33

Agree

+5
Who doesn't have an ID? This is BS. Election fraud is the problem. Republicans are just as crooked. I am a democrat and have no problem showing my ID. They are trying to distract us.

reply
Lanikai to Ev Rom 2012/08/15 21:48:41

+1
It is obama and the DOJ suing to NOT allow the military a couple of extra days, and SUING to NOT have voter ID laws in several key states.

reply
Ev Rom to Lanikai 2012/08/16 01:35:05

Well he is an idiot for that. But you guys are bigger idiots for falling for this ploy to divert attention to rigged voting machines. What good is an ID if a candidate has already been picked?

reply
Lanikai to Ev Rom 2012/08/16 14:51:22

True, but this we CAN control and that we cannot.

reply
Ev Rom to Lanikai 2012/08/16 20:33:27

It means our votes are useless.

reply
MsDianna 2012/08/15 18:48:51

Agree

+5
have to show ID to do alot of things so it should be to VOTE!

reply
BBLEE 2012/08/15 18:47:09

Agree

+5
The Democrats have some cheating planned, and picture I. D.'s will make it harder for the illegal's and the dead to vote.

reply
boneman1 2012/08/15 18:32:58

Agree

+6
Finally a judge with some common sense.

reply
AL 2012/08/15 18:28:31

Agree

+5
If you can't even prove who you are when a police officer pulls over-why then should you be able to vote-NOT being able to PROVE who you are then?

reply
ed 2012/08/15 18:28:23

Agree

+4
now we are getting some where and I know this upsets all the democrats and liberals.They'll just have to get over it.

reply
joshua.sager.9 2012/08/15 18:14:32

Disagree

+2
There is something wrong when a political party is pinning its chances of wining an election on the preventing of every citizen from voting. Voter disenfranchisement is anti-democratic and an abrogation of the values of our country.

reply
AL to joshua.... 2012/08/15 18:30:41

+4
LOL! How can you even prove who you are when a cop ask you for your own I.D. in that case then?

reply
joshua.... to AL 2012/08/15 18:48:50

Being pulled over by the police s not constitutionally protected--voting is. If you want to apply this logic, then stop commenting on the internet and exercising your right to free speech until you publicly register your government ID, to be posted next to any expressions of 1st amendment protected speech.

reply
AL to joshua.... 2012/08/15 19:06:34

+3
LMAO! You do know a cop can hold you until you can prove who you are then right? Because you might be a suspect in a crime just as well! So how is it you might also be breaking a law by voting ilegally as well then?

reply
joshua.... to AL 2012/08/15 19:14:26

Actually, a cop can only hold you for 48 hours after arrest. If you refuse to provide a name and cannot be identified, you are charged as a John Doe and, if the charge is serious enough, denied bail at a trial. For less serious offenses, the police will take your photograph/fingerprints and will release you with a fine or warning.

Judging by your silence on my free speech analogy, I suppose that you are perfectly okay with forcing all individuals who wish to engage in free speech to provide a valid government ID before being allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected right.

I would also point out: the suspicion that somebody may be committing a crime is absolutely irrelevant unless there is proof to back it up.

reply