Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:47 PM
greenymac (32 posts)
Just read on twitter that the Pennsylvania voter ID Law
has been overturned. I havent heard this from a reputable source yet though so if someone has, please confirm.
5 replies, 735 views
Just read on twitter that the Pennsylvania voter ID Law (Original post)
Response to greenymac (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
greenymac (32 posts)
1. Here's a link...
Its not exactly blocked but this is good news nonetheless. Still we must stay vigilant.
Response to greenymac (Reply #1)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:02 PM
yellowcanine (24,824 posts)
2. It is going to go down because there is no way that PA can certify that "liberal access" to voter ID
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.
"The biggest problem with the denizens of bullshit mountain is they act like their shit don't stink." - Jon Stewart
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #2)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:13 PM
SoapBox (6,687 posts)
3. The vote count was interesting...
Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:17 PM - Edit history (2)
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 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:
"America, let's rev our engines! In your car and on your ballot, the (D) is for Drive forward, and the (R) is for Reverse. And in this election, we're driving forward, not back. Let's re-elect our great president, Barack Obama!" Jennifer Granholm
Response to qwlauren35 (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 07:15 PM
Cosmocat (5,581 posts)
5. The kicked it back down to the asshat
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.