Thursday July 26 a forum on the Voter Id law's implementation was held at Montgomery County Community College (PA). The forum, hosted by Commissioner Leslie Richards, gathered a wide range of people from various communities together.
Among speakers were representatives from disabled and homeless groups, voter services, the Department of State of Pennsylvania, civic groups and lawyers. Regular folks were allowed to question and make statements after the panel's presentation.
(I am of the mindset the Voter Id laws may succeed in disenfranchising. I put up a snarky web site (www.JoeTheNerd.org) selling T-Shirts that say I was disenfranchised by the GOP and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt. To promote my site I printed up a bunch of flyers. Prior to the meeting I stood outside the room handing the literature out as if I were working the polls.)
The item that became crystal clear in the forum was - nothing is clear except the implementation of this law may kill the election process.
One attorney spoke from the dais that she was worried that fights would break out as voters would be denied their opportunity to vote. Her message was violence at the polls is never acceptable. On one level, I agree with her, but the irony of how many times we, as a country, commit violence in other places to secure 'democracy' was not lost on me. If we are having to talk in a public forum about the real threat of violence at the polls, maybe that should be a clue that this is a really bad law and needs to be overturned for public safety concerns. (If you want to REALLY go down the rabbit hole, some places cancel elections on the threat of violence.)
The most interesting comment came from a judge of elections. The judge of elections is the person in your neighborhood who runs the polls. It will be his job to tell folks they won't be able to vote. Judges get about $120 a day to run an election; usually twice a year. For this they are subjected to all sorts of penalties if something goes wrong at their polling place. Under this law, they are the ones who will look neighbors in the eye that they may have known for 20 or 30 years and tell them, "No, you cannot vote". This particular judge wondered whether he would be sick on Election Day. Actually, I think the judge is already sick of the idea that he will be put into this position. It simply isn't worth the hassle of a ton of punitive rules AND the threat of violence.
The Judges are put into the position of trying to implement a law that no one knows the rules for. Even Governor Corbett, the guy who designed and signed the law, has stated he doesn't know what forms of Id are valid. If he doesn't know how to apply this law, how do we expect the neighborhood guy or gal elected to run an election to figure it out?
The speaker from the Pennsylvania Department of State related that they would be making all sorts of exceptions to the law in order to allow people to vote. At one point, he stated that baptismal certificates would be used as an alternate form of Id to allow people to vote. Can someone show me in the law that was passed "baptismal certificates"? These guys are making it up as they go along. The Department of State is creating The Laws of Jello. They have put large numbers of voters at risk in the hopes of allowing a few people back into the game who have the time and resources to fight for themselves.
Some people have estimated that over $10,000,000 has been spent in attempting to implement this legislation. Another fun fact revealed by the Department of State Representative was federal funds are being used to implement this 'law'. If this law is shot down in the courts will the state refund the federal government? With the federal government have to sue the State of Pennsylvania for malfeasance?
The off-the-wall nature of how this law has been constructed will make it impossible to call the winner of the election for Pennsylvania until at least a week following the election. There is a potential for a large number of provisional ballots, those that may be allowed to be cast if you have questionable id. These are held for 6 days following the election to allow the voter the opportunity to actually prove they are a citizen. Even the idea of 6 days after the election was subject to confusion. It was noted 6 days were not 6 business days, but 6 calendar days, but because Veterans Day, a holiday, lands on the 6th day, the sixth day will actually be the 7th day. Also, there will be additional costs to implementing this law because county offices may have to remain open over the weekend after the election to deal with any voters' challenges. Can anyone say hanging chad?
Those who wrote and implemented this law need to be held accountable. If we are going to have this law, then we need to enforce it to the Nth degree - no exceptions, no making it up as we go along. Knock this law down in the courts BEFORE the first ballot is cast.
Is the Right to vote more fundamental than all other Rights? Montco PA Dem believes it is, apparently. I did not realize the Constitution gave different weight to each Right. It is interesting to me to see how people have very different interpretations of Constitutional Rights, and how they want to impose their interpretation upon all others. If all men and women are created equal, why do some have a "more equal" voice than I ? And why are my Rights less important than some unidentified "disenfranchised" person? As an American citizen who has worked for 38 years and paid taxes, and met all legal (and moral) requirements of society, I have no problem with the legislation.I want to protect the Right to vote, and I don't find the requirement to show ID any worse than having to register to vote. In order to legally assert my Second Amendment Rights, I have to produce ID, and undergo investigation. I hear many claim that healthcare is a Right ( I disagree ), yet you will have to show ID to obtain medical care. It seems those who are concerned about the constitutionality of this legislation, are not so concerned about many of our other Rights. But then again, apparently, the Right to vote is "more equal" than the other Rights. Welcome to Animal Farm.
Interesting that you would throw in a reference to violence at the polls when it comes to a - thus far - constitutional law.
you are the pig on the animal farm - with more influence than someone who's right has been diminished.
how do we define a free country if security forces have to deployed in order to have a violence-free election?
I read the arguments against the legislation, but I only see vague references to some "sector" of the population that would be denied access to casting a ballot. As you strongly believe the legislation is bad, and felt compelled to write about it, can you give me a specific example of someone you know, who is at risk? At this time, the only thing I take away from your post is that you dislike those who drafted the legislation, and that seems to be the position of many who stand against it. If there is a legitimate threat to our Right to vote, I would very much like to hear it.
Nor do I understand where I am "just plain wrong". I welcome the opportunity to hear how you believe I am wrong. Since you would put forth the argument that the Right to Vote supercedes all other Rights, I would countert that the Right to defend against a government that becomes oppressive is equally important, and as we have seen throughout history, sometimes we cannot defend against such a government by simply voting. I would "assert" that all our Rights are equally important. And unfortunately, as we become a society of increasingly dependent and irresponsible people, modifications are made to our Rights, in order to keep the Rights relevant to the times. We see an incredible influx of illegal aliens into our country. There are cities in our country that have given them a vote in local elections. I believe that is wrong, and I suggest we keep them from diminishing the Right that you and I have earned, as American citizens.
Several stories state the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the NAACP, and other groups. Other stories list the ACLU, the Advancement Project and the Public Interest Law Center of Phila, but don't list the NAACP. Further, some stories say the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 93 y/o Viviette Applewhite, who states her purse which contained her ID was stolen, and she fears she will be unable to replace it in time to vote. Other stories say she has never had a drivers license, and will be unable to vote. I can continue to search for the facts, as they probably exist somewhere, but has she been denied the Right to vote? As far as I have learned, she has not been denied the Right to vote, as it pertains to this legislation. And I would like to ask Ms. Applewhite if she receives social security benefits, medicare benefits, visits a doctor, if she rents or owns her own home, if she has a bank account, and how she attained any of these things, or went through 93 years in this country without some form of identification? Who exactly has been denied the Right to vote? The law hasn't even been applied to an election in PA yet, so how did this legislation deny someone the Right to vote? I am just seeking answers that some of you seem to have, but don't seem to want share.
Guns make it easier to kill than all of the other weapons you mentioned, don't be silly. Also, no one is trying to take your guns, so chill a bit. You should show your ID for guns because they need to be registered to specific people (you know, so you can safely have those guns instead of them ending up in the hands of people who are not stable enough for firearms). You don't have to show a photo ID for healthcare (I never have) and if you have been going to the same bank your whole life and have the correct numbers or just use an ATM you do not need ID for that either. How the woman came to not have ID does not really matter. What does matter is that she does not have it and due to her moves, she will be most likely unable to obtain a birth certificate in time for the election. This seems an unfair burden to place on certain parts of the population (especially on such short notice). This also adding to the fact that there have been no voter impersonation cases in PA and absurdly few in the US as a whole and that those parts would vote Democrat makes this wrong.
To address some of your examples, let me say that I am asked for identification once a year when I go to my doctor's office. It is done so as a measure to guard against insurance fraud. I don't know how much insurance fraud may be occurring in my doctor's office, but they do ask for it. Would they deny me the visit to see the doctor if I didn't have it? I don't know, but they do ask for it. I have been using the same bank for 20 years, and they ask to see my driver's license at least every 4 years, when the license is renewed. They do this to guard against theft. Again, would they deny me access to my account? I don't know, but as a responsible member of American society, I have the necessary items that I would need, in order to conduct business in our country. I guess some believe this legislation was enacted to stop a large block of Democratic voters from voting. Others believe it was enacted to stop illegal aliens from voting and to reduce the potential for voter fraud. I guess there is little room for compromise. I will add that, yes, there are many in this country who are afforded more Rights than me. Many laws are written to protect the Rights of some, versus others. I am not a "protected class" of citizen. It makes you wonder if you and I are living in the same country.
You and I fundamentally disagree on this issue and on our rights in general. You see this issue as safeguarding the voting process from those who are not citizens. I see it as a way to keep Democrats from voting. You see the regulation of guns as interfering with your Constitutional rights. I see it as a way to ensure the safety of the population. I understand your views and while I think they are somewhat valid because who would want non-citizens voting and who would want to take away our guaranteed rights, I do not agree with them. I fear we will never come to a consensus, but at least we can speak about this in a civilized manner and at least listen to what the other is saying. When people stop listening to others, that is when nothing in this country will ever get done and it will be left to rot.
"Mr. Ferraro, do you personally know someone who will be forbidden to vote, because they lack some form of acceptable identification?" A Freedom of Information Request to the state for the list of 759,000 people will reveal that information.
So even names like W. Wilson Goode, Jr and his son The III were on the list, along with four Philadelphia Councilmen and the old Veterans Stadium "drunk court judge" McCaffrey all appeared on the list. And each one had possessed the proper photo ID for YEARS! I think you need to ask for a better list! It would undoubtedly be A LOT SHORTER than 759,000 people.
I agree the lists need to be cleaned - but that should be independent of the Voter Id bill. This was a purge to kill the Democrat's ability to get out the vote. I am hoping for a large backfire.
What laws are you talking about - or are you deflecting? Think about it. You get paid $120 per day twice a year to be an enforcer of a law designed to disenfranchise people? You want to take these people's conscientious objection away from them? Wow - sign me up to get prosecuted.
Yesterday on the Dom Giordano show, he interviewed an election judge who said he would not enforce the voter ID law. Mr. Giordano cited other Election Judges who said they would do the same. Deflection?? Yes, I would take thier conscientious objections away from them, they took an oath to enforce the laws. If they can't do it, I respect that, but they need to resign. When you need a cop, and he shows up and refuses to help you because he objects to helping asshole, you'll change your mind, maybe.