get in line at the dmv now

Pennsylvania Judge: Voter ID Law Might Not Disenfranchise Like 700,000 Poor People, So, Upheld!

what the fresh prince did at homePennsylvania passed a new voter ID law without an actual reason why they needed it, which led to the meanies at the ACLU suing because they hate partial democracy with largely arbitrary requirements. Today, a Pennsylvania state judge upheld the law.

Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said the individuals and civil rights groups challenging the law had not met the heavy burden of proving that it so clearly violated the state constitution that it should not be implemented. He said there was still time for those without proper ID to acquire it.

“Petitioners did not establish . . . that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable,” Simpson wrote, adding, “I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a nonpartisan, evenhanded manner.”

Sure, that sounds likely!

Related video

Because Pennsylvania could theoretically provide IDs to all voters by Election Day (HA!), the petitioners could not prove that anyone’s disenfranchisement was inevitable, except maybe 1 to 9% of all Pennsylvania voters.

Simpson was skeptical of the challengers’ estimates. He said he believed that more than 1 percent of the commonwealth’s more than 8 million voters lacked the required ID, but less than the 9 percent figure that opponents of the law submitted.

Who do we have to thank for this glorious decision? The Supreme Court, who in 2008 said that states can pretty much do whatever they want in terms of requiring voter ID, because of voter fraud. Which Pennsylvania didn’t try to prove. So that’s a fun thing about law.

While the challenge was brought under the state constitution, Simpson’s opinion was heavily influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that seemed to give states the green light to require voters to present photo IDs. In the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, said that such a law in Indiana was a reasonable reaction to the threat of voter fraud, “amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”

It remains to be seen how much credit this now-valid voter ID law gets for stopping a problem that is “infinitesimal” and that Pennsylvania refused to argue the existence of, presumably because most voter fraud seems to be perpetrated by Republican officials. It’s good that they can stop those Massachusetts menaces, though. And the Arizona Republicans who cast their dead girlfriends’ votes.

Can you get more than 100% credit for stopping a thing that doesn’t really exist except for elected Republicans? We will try that with Ronald Reagan’s ghost and report back.

[Washington Post]

Related

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

84 comments

  1. YouBetcha

    Big deal. It's not like the right to vote is in the Constitution or something. You liberals are so dumb.

    1. foxpuppet

      He only mentioned the state constitution, so I'm wondering a) what is in the PA constitution about voting & b) does this judge just not care about the federal constitution?

  2. pinkocommi

    "most voter fraud seems to be perpetrated by Republican officials. "

    Funny that the same is true for politician fraud.

        1. IncenseDebate

          Imagine if this ever actually happened? There'd be major protests. The country would shut down.

          1. AbandonHope_

            And the people who were responsible for it would be dragged out into the streets and hanged. With votes.

            Man, it's a good thing that it's never happened.

          2. FNMA

            Yeah, good thing they never did anything really stupid like pick a president who turned out be a complete fucking disaster….Wait a minute…

          3. Katydid

            I was listening to a C-SPAN interview with that fuckhead Scalia the other day, and Brian Lamb asked him about Bush v. Gore. Scalia said his response to people that bring it up is, "Get over it."

            I hope someone kicks him in the nuts. With briefs, of course.

  3. Fairtackle

    “amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”
    AKA
    We had to destroy the integrity and reliability of the electoral process in order to save it.

    1. FNMA

      Hey, Baconz, things aren't that bad. We can buy beer in grocery stores — well, some grocery stores — now.

        1. Baconzgood

          At a time. You just have to go back into the store and get another 12. Its the 2 hand law. Many of times I bought 3 or 4 cases of beer at 1:30 at a bar.

    1. foxpuppet

      The GOP wants the olds to make it to the polling booths. After that the suckers will be at the mercy of the Ryan Plot.

  4. JustPixelz

    I voted in Connecticut yesterday and had to show ID. And I'm white! Somebody obviously didn't get the memo on how this is supposed to work.

    1. SorosBot

      Why the fuck do some states have their state/local primaries this late, and separate from their Presidential primaries?

      1. CthuNHu

        Because people who want to run for state rep often haven't even decided to by March, let alone run an entire primary campaign. And because having primaries in late summer or fall means a much shorter general election campaign better aligned with the willingness to pay attention to such things of the average citizen, rather than the eight months of frothy-mouthed broad-spectrum vituperation that the early presidential lock-in creates.

  5. Baconzgood

    PennDOT will get those 8,000,000 people ID. I mean, look at how nice and paved all our roads are in PA.

    1. widestanceromance

      Oh, thank you. I was going to pipe up with something to that effect in your comment above, but did not want to bash. I-83 would be smoother if it was still dirt.

    2. MissNancyPriss

      Seriously. I just read the PA ID requirements and I, as a homeowner with a passport would not be able to meet the requirements. There is not a single person I know who has a SS card AND a passport AND mortgage papers or lease agreement. NOT ONE.

  6. SorosBot

    Considering that the state House majority leader Mike Turzai said, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” I'm sure the judge is right "Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a nonpartisan, evenhanded manner.”

  7. noodlesalad

    Sniff…Disenfranchisement is all growed up! It's not little Jimmy Crow, anymore, it's Mr. James P. Crow, Esq.

  8. chicken_thief

    "…And the Arizona Republicans who cast their dead girlfriends’ votes."

    I call bullshit. Rentboys are not "girlfriends".

  9. BloviateMe

    It's neat how we now serve our constitution À la carte. Having to adhere it to every situation was getting irksome…who has the energy?

  10. UnholyMoses

    I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a nonpartisan, evenhanded manner.

    Translation: only the Poorz, liberal egghead college kids, and the Blahs will be affected. That = evenhanded! Q.E.DoIgetanothertermonthebenchnow?

  11. MacRaith

    Conservative legislators aren't even pretending any more, so why do conservative judges still find the need to cover for them? Why can't they just be honest and say in their opinions, "While this law will disenfranchise many valid voters, those concerns are secondary to the overriding need to prevent Democrats from winning office."

  12. JustPixelz

    The trouble I have with all these voter ID and curtailed hours and purge the rolls schemes is that they were passed without an intervening general election. Legislators should face an intervening election, otherwise it looks like they are rigging the system to help insure their own re-election. It's a kind of cheating.

    Also, no actual fraud, it's an indirect poll tax, first time in U.S. history voting has been restricted, etc.

    1. Isyaignert

      "…kind of cheating" is what the Republicans do; it's the only way they can win (with the help of Fux News of course).

    2. PhilippePetain

      Looks like? They're doing it with gusto. I don't think there's even a facade of this being non-partisan.

  13. chicken_thief

    I wish we were as good at fixing problems that we do have as we are at fixing the ones we don't have. But then, you know what they say about wishes….

  14. ChernobylSoup

    The 15th Amendment should have read, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall…"

  15. ph7

    I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a nonpartisan, evenhanded manner.

    Yes, because elections are known for their nonpartisan, evenhanded nature.

    Wasn't it Pennsylvania that set off the Drudge Siren about the Blank Panther standing in front of a polling location, intimidating voters by being a black person standing in front of a polling location?

    1. Isyaignert

      That's a funny as Alan "Who Me?" Greenspan saying that he had no idea that the Wall Street pit bulls wouldn't act like newborn puppies if they were let off their leashs and allowed to create cr@p out of nothing, sell it to the world, short everything, and watch the fireworks from their gated villas – or words to that effect.

  16. sudsmckenzie

    I love that the State Supreme Court wont be able to get a quorum cause one of the (R) justices is under indictment. Fuck yeah 'Merica!12

  17. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    What is interesting is that if you read most right wing web sites, they will not give any support as to voter fraud (as there are no facts to back that up), and usually admit that they mostly don't want "stupid people" to vote.

    So, who are the elitist now?

    1. sudsmckenzie

      I am just a humble caveman, but didnt the state admit they had no "known cases of voter fraud and no reason to believe there would be any fraud in this election"? literally, quoting them. Its like a Never Ending Story.

  18. fartknocker

    He who counts the votes decides everything. After the fiasco in Milwaukee county where the County Clerk was using MS Access to track votes and had a little oopsy moment, I suspect a few burough/village/town clerks will be deciding the elections in these communities.

  19. widestanceromance

    Better 699, 999 actual voters are denied a Constitutional right than one actually fraudulent vote be cast (if that). Our city shines once more, even as it glows on a hill of BS.

  20. SayItWithWookies

    If you stop one person from voting it's a crime — but if you stop 1% of the legally eligible population from voting, that doesn't meet this judge's standard for "immediate or inevitable?" I was hoping that even the dumb ones understood math, but apparently that's too ambitious.

  21. Oblios_Cap

    Finally! Back to the good old days when only white, male landowners could vote. Way to take our country back!

  22. Self-Uploader

    Anyone who honestly believes that getting the "acceptable" ID for an elderly non-driver is not an obstacle course that not involves not only time but transportation and money, should be forced to actually do it.

  23. Texan_Bulldog

    People, quit fretting. The Diebold machines are already programmed to vote for the right people. Actual voting is for the gullible.

  24. ahnc

    Trying to think like the GOP: Since the GOP is so desperate to take the black out of the White House, I think they might pull a Jeb Bush and take one state, hell as many as they want, to the Supreme Court. And then 'Merica will have it's second president put into office by the Supremes.

  25. deanbooth

    he believed that more than 1 percent … lacked the required ID, but less than the 9 percent figure that opponents of the law submitted.

    So I guess disenfranchising the 1% is A-OK (of course, not that 1%).

  26. TootsStansbury

    How and when can us citizens request UN intervention over the perversion of our democratic process?

    1. Jukesgrrl

      Maybe a call to President Carter. He's often a U.N. election observer in banana republics and has spoken eloquently about how equally abusive American elections are.

  27. Callyson

    He said he believed that more than 1 percent of the commonwealth’s more than 8 million voters lacked the required ID, but less than the 9 percent figure that opponents of the law submitted.

    This fucker. Because he "doesn't believe" the 9% figure, a law for which there is zero evidence of its necessity and whose supporters openly stated was designed to give Mittens the Keystone State is upheld?

    Asshole.

  28. Callyson

    Oh, now I am really pissed–from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's article on this crap:

    Judge Simpson noted the likelihood of that appeal in his decision, stating that stopping the law now — and in turn the educational efforts underway by state officials — while an appeal is under review would cause "great injury" should the law again be upheld in the Supreme Court.

    Great injury? Are you fucking kidding me? Who the hell would be injured? Does this guy think he is fooling anyone?

  29. Callyson

    Even more from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

    Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner said Judge Simpson's decision would have a disproportionate and negative impact on Allegheny County.
    "The Commonwealth itself has stated that more than 100,000 voters in Allegheny County could face problems voting in November because of the ID law," she said in a statement. "Just one vote denied is irreparable harm. Moreover, counties are burdened with the cost of implementation and the duty to prevent chaos at the polls in November."

    Unfunded burden on local governments, disproportionate impact on the poor, and unnecessary interference with the people's vote: that's a Republican law, alright…

    1. bikerlaureate

      I read somewhere that dividing the number of Philly / Pittsburgh voters that were potentially affected, by the number of hours the ID-issuing offices will be open between now and the registration cutoff, yielded an absurd result (impossible to process even a significant portion of those needing ID before the deadline). Have you seen any reporting along that line…?

      1. Callyson

        Ouch…haven't seen that but that would not surprise me. My home state deserves better, dammit…

        1. bikerlaureate

          Maybe it was on Balloon Juice.

          Consider it apocryphal until confirmed (I mean, surely the judge wouldn't uphold the law if it were so, right?)…

          ETA –

          In Philadelphia, it’s even worse: 186,830 registered voters, or 18 percent, do not have ID.

          linky

          So let's run some (heh) conservative numbers…
          Say that estimate's off by a third.
          And I see there are five PennDOT offices in Philadelphia County – let's pretend most of the photo ID units are open on Monday, for a generous total of 48 hours a week.
          And assume full-blown registration is allowed right up to the day before the election…

          124,553 potential voters to process in (5 offices*8 hours per day*67 days =) 2,680 hours.

          Unless my math is flawed (or my logic – all too possible), that's a mere 46.47 voters to process per office, every single hour…

          …unless a good chunk of those voters are willing and able to travel outside the county…

  30. T3rbo

    So the judge said, basically, keep track of those who are disenfranchised, report that number, and then we'll talk? Or was he just saying 'blahs, who cares?'

  31. rc33

    How does anyone do anything in this country without an I.D? There must be a 100 things less significant than voting (at libraries, public swimming pools, etc, etc..) that mandate an ID be shown.
    As a Democrat, I find this topic absurd and almost embarrassing. And to make it a racial issue? C'mon.
    It makes us look like the one's that are angling for voter fraud..

  32. lingin

    I live in Pennsylvania. I needed copies of my father's and paternal grandmother's death certificates. Daddy died in PA, his mother died in Florida. Florida sent me the certificate in less than a week. PA needed 8 weeks to process and send it.

    Oh yeah, this will go well.

  33. ttommyunger

    Considering my votes here in Dumfukistan go directly down the Computer Rabbit Hole with no receipt and no record-I can't really see that any of this matters. I complain about this loudly every time I vote; not loud enough to get locked up, but loud enough to make some old people working there nervous for just a minute. FUCK!

  34. mrblifil

    It's for their own good. Voting for persons of color gives people funny ideas. Imagine if all kinds of persons of color just cold got up one day and decided to run for political office! Didn't think about that one, now did you?

Comments are closed.