Emmaus Patch Reacts to Voter ID Decision
Will this decision stick? Both sides had said they would appeal this ruling.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld Pennsylvania’s controversial Voter ID law in an announcement today. Simpson, who is from Nazareth, said he wouldn’t grant an injunction to stop the law requiring all voters to show a photo ID before voting.
The challenge to the law was brought by voter advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP.
It’s unclear what this decision will actually mean, since both sides had vowed to appeal the judgment if it didn’t go their way.
Pennsylvania passed a law in March requiring all registered voters to show a valid and “acceptable” photo ID before voting. This is one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation.
Opponents of the law say it disproportionately targets the elderly as well as the poor and minorities, who typically vote Democrat. Furthermore, critics say that the burden of obtaining an acceptable ID for these people would keep them from voting.
Thirty states have some sort of Voter ID law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, 19 do not require a photo, six require a photo and five, including Pennsylvania, have strict photo requirements.
Carl Stevenson
9:50 am on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
You have to show ID for all sorts of things. Why should voting be any different?
The ONLY reason to oppose the ID requirement is to support voter fraud.
Any assertion that an ID requirement is "discriminatory" is pure BS.
To allow anyone to vote without proof that they are who they say they are, and are legally entitled to vote, is to allow our country to be conquered, just as certainly as if we welcomed a invading army with open arms.
Nancy O'Keefe
10:47 am on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Passed and promoted along party lines. They couldn't even wait until after the election to avoid the appearance of partisanship. There are probably fewer requirements to purchase a gun than to vote in PA. It is absolutely a sham...maybe the only way the GOP can win PA.
Patricia Roblin
9:55 am on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The voter fraud argument is a sham. The law disenfranchises people who have voted for decades. Listen to something other than Fox News Carl.
Carl Stevenson
10:27 am on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Who does it disenfranchise? How?
And, if these people ou refer to have been voting (illegally) for decades, shouldn't they be stopped? Non-citizens, felons, dead people, and people's pets should NOT be voting.
What part of that don't you understand ... Or, why do you disagree? (please be specific about why you seen to think that everyone should be able to vote, even if they are not legally qualified ... other than that they will vote for democrats who will continue to steal from the productive to give to the lazy and/or illegal in order to buy their votes and remain in power)
Jeff
3:03 pm on Friday, August 17, 2012
LOL! Typical lib response huh? At least they didn't start the name calling. If something as basic as producing ID to show who you are is so difficult you do not belong in the voting booth anyway. I guess besides the corpses and pets, this will also purge us of those unable to reason and think rationally.
Jeff
3:09 pm on Friday, August 17, 2012
Yes Nancy, the GOP does have a better shot without all of the Democrat corpses and pets casting votes.