HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pa. voter-ID plaintiff fi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:24 PM

Pa. voter-ID plaintiff finally gets card

Source: Seattle Times

The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter-identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a state Department of Transportation office and was issued the photo-ID card she needs to vote.

<snip>

The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents — all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.

But Thursday, she got it anyway. "You just have to keep trying," said Applewhite, who uses an electric wheelchair. "Don't give up."

<snip>

State officials called it an unplanned exercise in what they've been saying for weeks: Clerks at Pennsylvania Department of Transportation centers can take age and other factors into consideration when granting exceptions to the list of documents the law requires, licensing-bureau director Janet Dolan said.

Read more: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018941423_voterid18.html



What this means to me is that they've granted an exception that probably won't be given to most people in that situation, and now at the next appeal hearing the whole case will be thrown out because the plaintiff no longer has "standing"

9 replies, 2558 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pa. voter-ID plaintiff finally gets card (Original post)
LeighAnn Aug 2012 OP
SunSeeker Aug 2012 #1
LeighAnn Aug 2012 #2
lobodons Aug 2012 #3
MADem Aug 2012 #4
drm604 Aug 2012 #5
lonestarnot Aug 2012 #8
methodman Aug 2012 #6
The Last Democrat Aug 2012 #7
Great Caesars Ghost Aug 2012 #9

Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:29 PM

1. "Clerks can take age and other factors into consideration.."

Wait, so your right to vote is dependent on the whims of a registration clerk, short of raising a stink in the media? WTF? Clearly the clerk did not exercise his/her discretion correctly the first time. What's to stop more BS like this?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:33 PM

2. Ah there are others

There are other plaintiffs in this case... bet they all get quick, unexplained exceptions, too

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:46 PM

3. One down

999,999 to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:58 PM

4. There are other plaintiffs--the "lead plaintiff" is just the name that comes before "et. al." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 02:47 PM

5. So our right to vote is now at the discretion of DMV clerks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 07:29 PM

8. That's how they are pulling bullshit in AZ too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 03:40 PM

6. Many immigrants during certain decades also changed spellings in their name.

 

During certain decades certain countries were not liked in certain states so the immigrants many times changed their names to a more favorable country spelling. This is real. How do you account for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 03:51 PM

7. What the Judge should

have done is to extend the time to get the voter identification, say for a year….giving everyone time to get what is need to comply with the new law and being eligible to vote if so desired. But, as we all know the voter-identification law is not about voting or fraud.

Do they think, giving the lead plaintiff in the suit which was seeking to block the law, the required identification is going to make this go away…..i don’t think so. They are just trying to make it appear it can be done and will now be the vote’s fault if that don’t have the ID.

Not enough time should have been giving at least a year to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeighAnn (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:30 AM

9. So basicly everyone has a price?!?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread