In his ruling, state judge Robert Simpson concluded that a voter-ID requirement is “a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.” Further, he wrote, “protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest.”
Judge Simpson also found that there were relatively few Pennsylvanian voters without ID, despite the plaintiffs’ claim that there were 1 million such voters. Judge Simpson rejected the ACLU’s attempt to “inflate the numbers” and threw out the testimony of their expert as “not credible.”
Upper Darby Supercop Mike Chitwood might put it another way: Not in Our State, Scumbags!
This is an undue burden and infringement on our rights. I don't believe in carry permits and I don't believe in mandatory identification, that's the gist of it for me. There have been no proven cases of fraud in our state so the government should stay out of the electorates business.I feel like this is tantamount to an employee demanding a peek at their employers books. We elect the government, the government should be in no position what ever to make demands on us.
ReplyDeleteAny uninvited infringement into my life by a governmental agency is enough for me to oppose. All of you, Republicans, Democrats, and independents should be opposing this too. What ever happened to personal liberty?
First of all, they are NOT permits to carry. I did not ask permission. They are licenses to carry. I applied and received it. I did not ask permission. The licensing system have been defined by the SCOTUS and State governments as legal and while I share your thought that the 2nd amendment is my license, the law thinks differently. Now the law has insisted that people who want to vote need ID. Makes good sense to me. There is quite a difference between an employer, who you choose, and the government. Your arguments are poor.
ReplyDeleteWhat you speak is anarchy and is not recognized by any civil authority.
Sir, that is precisely my point, we do, in fact, choose our government and they work for US. They are the employee in the argument and that argument is sound. Sound within the context of our constitution, as it stands today, and when it was drafted by the framers.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am speaking about is constitutional liberty and any exercise by the government that serves to curtail any citizens rights should be opposed by all of the citizenry, regardless of race, creed , or party affiliation. We are Americans and we need to be Americans together
Dan,
ReplyDeleteDid you fail to read the part of the Constitution that said, "As Amended?"
In the last 200+ years the laws have changed. I agree we need to reduce the size of government, but we can't just go pull the band aid off in one giant rip.
We need to take it back one step at a time. IF we have another revolution, I will stand on the side that gives liberty to more people. We need to reduce the entitlements and those who take and not give. (I get that) I am willing to take it back slowly, as it was lost to me over the previous 200 years.
Mr. Platt: I respectfully submit that you are not correct that there are no proven cases of voter fraud in our state. Please take the time to google "Anita MonCrief" I agree that I do not want infringement into my life by a governmental agency. However, I also do not want our elections decided by fraudulent votes. A person who wants to cash a check at a bank needs photo ID even if it is his or her own preprinted check drawn on his or her own bank at which he or she presents the check. The bank wants to prevent fraud. Why should not the same standard apply to preventing voter fraud? The photo ID law is not an infringement into my life. It is a protection my right to make my vote count.
ReplyDelete