Delaware County officials have no plans to follow actions made by two other counties that have decided to issue photo identification cards to any residents through county-affiliated nursing homes or colleges.
Last week, officials in Democratic-controlled Montgomery and Allegheny counties announced they would issue photo ID cards to any residents who want them through county-affiliated nursing homes or colleges.First, since when is Allegheny county a "neighbor" to Delco?
Second, as the story makes clear, Philadelphia county officials are not "following the lead" of these two renegade counties either. Issuing photo IDs to people who have no actual affiliation with said colleges or nursing homes violates the clear requirements of the law. If Democrats want to weaken or get rid of the new law, they should elect more representatives and win a majority in the state legislature.
Furthermore, the lawsuit filed against the law has obviously failed. The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the judge who ruled it legal in the first place for review and the advice:
if Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson believes no registered voters will be prevented from casting a ballot. Otherwise, the high court said it should be halted.But, of course, no registered voter will be prevented from "casting a ballot." Even without ID, according to the law, voters are allowed to cast a provisional ballot.
The state has streamlined the system of granting photo IDs so the actions taken by Democratic politicians Montgomery and Allegheny counties can be seen for what they are; partisan attempts to win an election at the expense of campus and nursing home security. Not to mention the security of the ballot box.
Maybe that's the reason not even Democratic-controlled Philadelphia is following this "lead."
UPDATE: The AP sez new Voter ID laws could delay outcome in a close election.
Of course they could. Provisional ballots and all that. But better to get it right than have the election stolen by either party.
Gil, ofcourse giving out Id's is a "partisan attempts to win an election" But, requiring id in the first place was a tad more blatent dont you think?
ReplyDeleteOh, and your prediction about the success of the law suit to halt the law? I bet you're wrong. It will have to be changed in some way before it can be enforced.\\
Mike Farrell
Springfield
I know I will be working as a poll watcher that day in an undisclosed location. I will be looking for compliance. Many people are giving there day to help this law succeed in areas where compliance might be questionable!
ReplyDeleteMr. Farrell,
I think, in 2012, it is quite legal to require that every voter get's their one vote. I feel better that MY vote is protected and other more sinister people will not be able to vote more than once and in the correct polling precinct.
Danny:
ReplyDeleteI agree in the importance of protecting every person’s vote. I don't believe there are any credible reports in PA of sinister people voting more than once. New law or not, you're protected!
I also hope that all of the folks helping the law succeed in areas where compliance might be questionable or where compliance isn't a question will avoid straying into any intimidation of voters. I'd hate to see a bunch of well-meaning citizens find themselves under indictment for voter intimidation. I'd really hate to see any organized groups of well-meaning citizens charged with criminal conspiracy for coordinating some overzealous help with the law.
Based on this story Mike Farrell could well be right.
ReplyDeleteDanny,
ReplyDeleteYou seem genuine in your conviction and I respect that. And I agree there's not a thing wrong with ensuring the fairness and integrity of the voting process.
The thing is, from a constitutional perspective, this is a bad law.
The law simply cant meet the strict scrutiny test applicable to the infringement on fundamental
rights. It wont be enforced because legally it cant be.
Mike Farrell
Since many State Supreme courts have upheld this already to be Constitutional, and the PA Supreme Court did not find it Unconstitutional, how do you come to that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteIf the States Supreme Courts say it is, it is. Simple enough. People who argue say it is politics.
Also the 15th Amendment as amended, never says the word Infringeed as you mention in your editorial.
It is stated as :The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
No one is being abridged or denied by these measures. ALL people, all races, all colors all previous conditions of servitude MUST supply an ID.
Now, on to Media Mike.
ReplyDeleteYou are almost a good spin meister. You say there have been no "credible" reports.
"Philadelphia city commissioner Al Schmidt reported that he’d found numerous violations in just a small sample of his city’s precincts."
"On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election."
The report, which focused on cases in 15 of the
city’s 1,687 election districts, found cases of double voting, voter
impersonation, voting by non-citizens, and 23 cases of people who were
unregistered to vote but nonetheless permitted to do so.
There is credible evidence to support an ID law. I don't want any person who is eligible to vote to miss out, I just my one vote to count. I don't want the possible impropriety of an illegal vote to possibly cancel out my legal vote. ID is a good start.
Nice post. Today every person needs photo id cards because without id card any person can’t identifier, who is he. Now photo id cards need on every place.
ReplyDelete