Herr Poorman, SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

A thinly-disguised attempt to disenfranchise the poor is all this is, as well as rally the right-wing neo-fascists to a non-cause. Voter fraud is almost non-existant - but it sure does resonate with right-winger's. Instead of REAL issues the right-wing gives Voter ID laws.

Nice going guys.

With all due respect, keep in mind that your 50% figure may refer to federal income taxes. However, even people who do not pay income tax do pay witholding taxes for Social Security, Medicare, state taxes, sales taxes etc. If your income falls below the threshold you are exempt from federal income tax, that includes our teenagers that work, the working poor etc. And remember as well included in that figure are people who are retired, disabled and stay at home moms, students, the unemployed. So, your point is?

I Just want to be sure we are accurate in how we portray the information.

everyone who works in PA pays 3.08% of their salary to the state of PA and since PA doesn't have 50% unemployment...
The concept should be ID to register to vote (which would be constitutional) and not change the rules midstream.

Did those felons all vote for Franken? If not, why would we assume their vote wasn't split in the same manner of the rest of the voters? And I keep seeing that 103% Philly turnout number - where did that come from? I can't find any source for that beyond conservative blogs and forum posts who 'heard about it.' I'd love to read the actual report on that. The premise doesn't even really make sense, right? In the 2008 Presidential election, nation-wide, only 57% of people who could vote, did.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.pdf
Here's a listing of the 2008 Presidential turnout results by ward in Philly - the highest turnout is 73%:
http://www.seventy.org/Downloads/Election_Returns_&_Data/2008_General/November_2008_Results.pdf

If there was a district were 103% of the population voted, than the judge of elections, and the inspectors were criminally negligent at the very least. Problem is this law will not fix that. If the elected officials are corrupt, they will let people without ID vote anyway.

Felons are allowed to have photo ID, so a law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls would not have prevented that problem.

In any event, the Commonwealth admitted in writing that there is no evidence of in person voter impersonation fraud:
http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-commonwealth-stipulation/

I don't understand your 'do more time' argument - are you implying that the felons were voting from prison and that Franken was going to reduce their sentences, or that Coleman was seeking to extend their sentences? I don't follow your reasoning. Anyway, did you follow what actually happened with those thousand Franken-voting felons?

The watchdog group that exposed them, Minnesota Majority, who initially cited 1500 felons only officially submitted 480 felons they flagged as voting illegally. The prosecution dismissed 270 because they "were ruled out usually because they had the wrong identity of a person,... or because the person no longer was on probation, and thus their civil rights had been restored." Of the remaining 210, 133 were found guilty of voter fraud, because 'about half of them were people who were felons who just registered but did not actually vote.' So, it seems that even if every single voting felon had voted for Franken, it still wouldn't have mattered.

And, yeah, of course unemployment and the national debt are huge issues. Until the US starts making things that the rest of the world buys, however, that's how it's going to be. Too bad the invisible hand of the free market nudged all the manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor, right? But we're digressing - this discussion is about voter IDs, after all.

Mr. Pipes please provide us with your source that says that "Over 4000 registered voters in New York are also registered in Florida by being snowbirds and VOTED TWICE." Did anyone go to jail?

The penalties for committing voter fraud are severe. If these people were charged with the crime of fraudulent voting and no one went to jail, what was the reason for not charging those "over 4000 registered voters?

Also, could you please point to the place in the Affordable Health Care Act where it states that American people must have a drivers license or an identification obtained at the DMV. Further, where does the AHCA state that the patient must have an ID with the same requirements, that the PA Republicans are placing on what is acceptable to them, as proof of who they are?

Patients will be Taxed if we don't have an ID? I'd also like to know where you found that information in the AHCA, so I can read it for myself.

How would photo ID laws prevent snowbirds from voting in both New York and Florida? Many of the acceptable forms of ID (like a passport) do not contain your address, so these voters still would be able to vote in two places even if both states had a photo ID law.

I can relate to your frustration Earnest, makes me sick also. So many school districts are in distress and PA is wasting money on this phantom witch-hunt. I plan on holding them accountable with my vote- that's for sure.

Mr. Pipes, this thread is about PA voter ID laws seen by the majority as a violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens as well as an attempt by one political party to purposely attack and disenfranchise specifically selected groups of Americans. Additionally, forcing them to pay money to obtain their requirements in order to vote, which is a poll tax.

Your continued negative claims about the AHCA, which IS constitutional and has been cited by the CBO as a law that will, in the long term, REDUCE the deficit, is getting rather old, and makes you sound like someone who is just not willing to except facts.

Further, the fact that the mandate was exactly what the Republicans have advocated for, makes your complaining disingenuous.

How exactly did the AHCA waste billions of dollars? If billions of dollars were wasted in court challenges then those wasted "billions" lay at the feet of those who challenged a law that IS constitutional. Add that to the financial charge to the American people, via our hard earned tax dollars, that were wasted by the fiscally Irresponsible Republicans in the House who voted how many times??? (at least 31) to repeal the AHCA, which did absolutely NOTHING to bolster our country's economy.

lets change the constitution so that we can elect a dog-abusing, non-tax paying grandson of a mexican polgamist.

Dr. Fiona Wallice aka Lisa Kudrow aka ??? - Could you please enlighten us all on the following:

1- Please explain how the Republican dictatorial PA voting laws are Constitutional?

2- Why (didn't) the Republican Party establish a New Specific Voter ID Card and Require ALL registered voters obtain that New Specific Voter ID Card in time for the November elections?

3- Why (didn't) the Republican Party include Absentee Ballots in their (make believe) voter impersonators that are committing fraud?

4- Have poll workers ever been trained to professionally identify fake drivers license/ID's and will they have that professional training and some kind of test that they must take to prove that they are qualified to make that judgement before the November elections?

Your name calling and attempts at reasoning away something that you support as well as the Republicans, that are currently in charge of PA Government, have yet to provide any factual proof for the necessity of a law that is designed to target specific groups of American Citizens.

Republicans did not create a law that requires ALL PA Citizens to go through the exact same requirements to prove that they are not guilty of fraud. So, why are only some American Citizens living in PA being forced to do something that others are not, as well as pay to exercise their constitutional right?

Actually, Earnest, the photo ID laws are constitutional, as the US Supreme Court ruled on Indiana's version of photo ID (2008) ... a 6-3 vote, making it a stronger decision than the ACA opinion. So until such time as they are declared "unconstitutional" they are in fact constitutional.

"So until such time as they are declared "unconstitutional" they are in fact constitutional."

The trial judge who enjoined the Wisconsin photo ID law held that the plaintiffs in that case were likely to prevail on their claim that the law was unconstitutional despite the Crawford case:

"The defense submits that the court should be guided by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford . . . in which the court considered challenge to the Indiana voter ID law. The Crawford decision has very little application to the dispute now before this court, however, for three primary reasons. First, this case is founded upon the Wisconsin Constitution which expressly guarantees the right to vote while Crawford was based upon the U.S. Constitution which offers not such guarantee. Second, the Indiana law is less rigid that [the Wisconsin law], and as noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, offered alternative voting opportunities to voters who lacked the photo ID. Finally, the Crawford case came to the court based upon a flawed factual record lacking the substantial evidence that has been offered by the plaintiffs in this action." http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Voter+ID+injunction.pdf (p.9).

Substitute "Pennsylvania" for "Wisconsin" and this easily could be a paragraph from Judge Simpson's upcoming opinion if he grants an injunction.

Well, that's a HUGE if right now, particularly when trying to apply a decision in Wisconsin to a case in Pennsylvania. I'll hang my hat on the fact the USSC has ruled voter photo ID laws as constitutional and not an unreasonable burden or barrier to voting.

"the USSC has ruled voter photo ID laws as constitutional and not an unreasonable burden or barrier to voting"

Your characterization of the holding in Crawford is much too sweeping. Here is what the Court actually said: "In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters." http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9378098557660608267&q=crawford+v.+marion&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39

Nowhere did the Court say, as you suggest, that all photo ID laws are constitutional and do not impose an undue burden. Rather, the Court held that the plaintiffs who challenged the law failed to create a sufficient factual record to justify their challenge to the law.

So even if Judge Simpson concludes that Crawford governs the challenge to the PA Photo ID law (which, unlike the Crawford case, raises no issues of federal law), he will, according to express holding of Crawford, have to evaluate the factual record created by the voters who challenged the law during the hearing last week to see if they met their burden. I will not even try to predict what result he will reach when he does that analysis. But I am confident Judge Simpson understands that, under Crawford, he has to do the analysis.

Sorry, freeandequal, but the following is pretty clear to me (despite that I may have gotten the wording wrong):

"Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”

"Indiana’s law allows voters who lack photo identification to cast a provisional ballot, then appear at their county courthouse within 10 days to show identification. Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, said during the argument of the case in January that such requirements are not onerous."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

So the real issues to me are this, a) Can opponents to the photo ID provision really come up with anybody who can prove the law - on its own merits - causes anyone to be disenfranchised when the requirements of the law "are not onerous", and b) Given that a similar law has been ruled "minimal AND justified", how do they get around the obvious fact that with a bit of persistence - and in light of Pennsylvania's repeated attempts to make the law's requirements more "voter friendly" - no one should have a problem meeting its requirements?

Sounds like a loser of an argument to me.

Mike: You are citing to the concurring opinion. The concurring opinion is NOT the holding of the case. Only 3 Justices, a minority of the Court, believed that the challenge to the Indiana law should fail for the reasons cited in the concurring opinion.

In a concurring opinion the authors are basically saying: "We agree with the result, but for reasons different than or in addition to the reasons the majority gives." So, for instance, in the healthcare opinion, the four more liberal justices wrote a concurring opinion saying that the individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority (in addition to a valid exercise of Congress' taxing authority). That concurring opinion is, most certainly, not the law of the case -- it only had 4 votes.

As for whether the Petitioners, unlike the voters who challenged the Indiana law, can demonstrate that the law will substantially burden or disenfranchise them -- they put on 14 witnesses at the trial to make that case. The transcripts of the trial testimony are here: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/trialtranscripts.htm. Again, I am not going to even try to predict whether the Judge will find the evidence relevant and/or sufficient. But you can read the transcripts and form your own opinion.

It does exist. It simply isn't discovered and reported. If a fraud is successfully committed, how does one notice it?

Mike Shortall, if it hasn't been discovered, how do you know it exists? If that's your concern, it seems like that begs for more investigation, not preventative measures for something we don't is actually happening and may not be effective.

It would be extremely easy to perform an empirical study to determine if voter impersonation fraud was occurring: (1) check the poll books to see whether people who died before any given election signed in to vote; (2) contact a statistically significant number of voters who signed in to vote at any election and ask whether they in fact voted; and (3) check to see whether anyone who fraudulently registered to vote actually signed in to vote. The fact that the proponents of the law have not done this study (or, if they have, have not published the results) is telling.

I prefer to look at it like this ... We manipulate all kinds of systems and processes to make them MORE SECURE. Why exactly should voting, supposedly one of our most sacred rights, be any different??

All kinds of voter fraud has been committed, recognized as such, and dealt with when found. How could anyone pretend individual voting fraud hasn't been committed?!?

Conduct a survey??? As if that would satisfy anyone ...

"How could anyone pretend individual voting fraud hasn't been committed?!?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "individual voting fraud" but if you meant to say in-person voter impersonation fraud, the Commonwealth admitted there is no evidence it happens: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-commonwealth-stipulation/

And how is flipping through a poll book to see whether dead people signed in to vote a "survey"? It would be a simple exercise. Prove that people are showing up at the polls on election day and impersonating dead people FIRST, and THEN spend my tax dollars on a law to fix the problem.

....and where Mr. Pipes, did I state that I was a Liberal or a Democrat????....you know the old saying about the problem with ASSuming dont you...
What I am sir, is someone that does not just take what I hear for truth b/c some talking-head mouthpeice says that I should. What I do,sir, is listen CAREFULLY to what all of those that want to represent me have to say. I listen to how their ideas make sense or not and about the long-term benifts to my family, and those in my community. I digest it, process it and formulate an opinion on how an elected official will benifit the common good of the ALL the people (e pluribus unum). Without understanding why, I know there are voters that do not , and they subsequently end up voting for someone that does not have their best interest in mind.They vote against themselves!!!!
Winston Churchill said....'the greatest argument against democracy is a short conversation with the average voter.'
Mr. Pipes, I believe Churchill may have been speaking of ...
Finally, I would like to add this that hopefully will provoke you to think very carefully about your financial future
....'A middle-class American that votes republican is as smart as a chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders'

Nothing really makes someone in a political discussion as immediately discredited as calling someone, in all caps of course, LIBS or CONS, does it?

If you use those who are supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--best described as a federal largess to indigent families with dependent children--as stated by the Dept. of Health the data suggests 1.7% of the total population that derive over 50% of their income from Welfare supports.

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

This breaks down to:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

The strictest sense of the term though would be those getting income directly from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services which is about 8% of the total population that receives some form of assistance and 1.7% that receive most of their income (50% or more) from these programs.

Since you seem to believe so many people in the country are on the dole, thought these statistics might interest you.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare#ixzz230gHhj1A

And apparently giving it to GOP states. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16. Yep, you are right. Dems are the losers. But the GOP keeps making excuses for a law which only creates problems. There are no cases of in person voter fraud in PA. Any cases involve absentee balloting which is not covered by this law. Just remember voting is a constitutional right and Every citizen 18 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. PA constitution.says that laws requiring and regulation registration are the laws the Gen'l Assembly can enact, not laws restricting voting.

They also have to fly back to NY to vote. Or vote by absentee which our law doesn't cover. It also doesn't cover someone registered in 2 districts, since the PA license does not need to have a current address.

Mr. Flanagan, explain how the voter ID law, that impacts select groups of citizens, is constitutional? Please tell us who will foot the financial costs that have and will continue as a result of the baseless Republican law?

That's the real problem, Louis. Few who need the ID will bother, as illustrated by the fact that as of mid-July only 2800 people had successfully obtained the required ID. The Democrats will try to tell you the other 750,000-1 million voters they claim are without the ID can't possibly make it "all the way out" to a PENNDOT office.

Apparently PENNDOT decided to build all its documentation centers as far away from civilization as possible!

I know when my mother needed one to travel by plane, I was able to get her to a PENNDOT office and had her ID within an hour.

Well said.

None of the examples in this article would have been prevented by the photo ID law. For instance, the article refers to "one couple, the Middletons, who 'voted twice, once here and once in New Jersey, same election, registered twice, no problem.'”

With the exception of a drivers license, NONE of the photo IDs acceptable to vote under the new law contain an address. So even with the law in place, the Middletons could have voted in both states with, say, a passport.

The constitution also grants the right to bear arms. Try buying a gun without showing ID.......

Cathy, there are alot of "what if's" in your little story here. Most reasonable people would see these as excuses. The state is offering free ID's to those without a current DL. Its very difficult to say that in 2012 you have no way or proving who you are to any reasonable person.

What if the zombies appear and burn down the PennDot service centers? What if Canada decides to invade? What if my cow gets sick and dies on the one day I had set aside to get my photo ID? These things can keep a guy awake all night just worrying.

Harry Doyle - the right to bear arms and the right to buy arms are not the same thing.

I know! Right! I mean how long have we been voting in PA and there hasn't been a problem? You register, they check your license, signature, address, etc. When you vote, you sign a book and they verify your signature and off to voting! Simple and it works. NOW we have to change it?? I mean if they did this right after 9/11, maybe I could have more of a understandign. But it's been like 11 years?? Now we have a problem!! Not 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970...1990, but 2012!! Yep, that's right...now we have a problem. Geeeezzzuuuuuuzzzzzzzz!

Justwondering, It is NOT that Republicans are more likely to follow the law. The groups of voters that this law targets specific groups of people, many who have been identified as those who tend to vote for Democratic candidates and more specifically voted in large numbers for President Obama.

It is the requirements that have been established for these voters like college students, people who live in the cities, senior citizens, and minorities. You see, the excessively large portion of Americans that are being targeted by the Republicans are minorities, which points to a bigoted law.

People that don't have a drivers license, people that don't travel, because they are too financially poor to be able to afford that luxury. Seniors like the 90 some year old woman that was born in another state and has no records that are (required) to prove who she is. When young that woman was denied the right to vote because of the color of her skin. The same woman who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in order to obtain her constitutional rights as an American citizen.

Your absolutely right in one thing and that is that voting is a serious deal and we must take it seriously. You are wrong and not taking voters rights or our constitutional rights seriously by not being able to see the assault on the constitutional right of (carefully selected groups of Americans) for no other purpose than to complicate the voting process (just them).

I'm pretty sure the opposition to it comes from the figures - on both sides of the debate - that pretty clearly show that more legitimate voters will be blocked than illegitimate voters. I'm sure there's a way to deploy something like this in a fair and universal manner, but that's not going to happen in the next 80 days. Perhaps we should shoot for the 2014 elections, which is usually much less weighted down with partisan rhetoric than a Presidential election, and would give us all enough time to make a system that does more to ensure the accurate representation of the voting public?

Let's look at it this way: wouldn't you be willing to accept 100 illegitimate votes - ones than can be legally challenged and dismissed, as we saw in Minnesota - than lose 100 legitimate votes? What if, as the data implies, accepting 100 illegitimate votes to not lose 1,000 legitimate? 10,000 legitimate?

If we're going to do it, let's take the time to do it properly - I'd gladly risk accepting a false vote than preventing a true one.

I did.

yes, and hysterical

Saying there should be some sort of standard to being a voter is terrible. We already have an awful turnout. What we need is more ways to motivate people to vote, not ways to keep them from it.

nope, driving is a privilege, not a right.

It might be your honest opinion, but, legally, no, nobody has the right to drive. The right to vote is the fundamental thing that makes someone an American citizen - even the uneducated and irresponsible are citizens.

I said - the right to apply....................

Sure, but we don't apply to vote, we simply come of age.

To Justwondering--what a nice post, but the minute I read it, I knew that you would get mindless replies, reminding you that "driving is a privilege and not a right" but not stick to the gist of your post. Of course, they didn't disappoint. You are correct in everything you said here, but unfortunately, Democrats will see flaw in your post. They continue to think that it's an overreach to expect someone to assume a little responsibility, in order to protect the right to vote (thinking that is still a right, not a privilege, as driving is). They continue to contend that the photo ID law is the brainchild of Republicans who demand things done on the up and up, how dare they. Having a fair and square election without concern that people's dogs, dead people, and illegals have voted is just a silly notion with no place in today's society. Yes, you are correct in your discernment and desire for all things being legal, but goodness, that may actually mean that a Republican might win the election. OH God forbid!!

You are trying to make voting harder to do = stops people from voting.

Then you say that the current generation does not vote because they are not civic minded enough to go through the extra steps that you do not have to in order to vote.

There shouldn't be extra steps for some people to be able to vote. It should take the same amount of effort for everyone.

justwondering, Excuse me but I as well as all of my family have always worked hard, paid our bills, behaved responsibly, and taken care and provided for our own. My children also work hard, study hard, and volunteer. Our children pay a great deal of attention to what is going on in our country and around the world. They have friends that live in many different countries and have spent time in many different countries. They and their friends all vote and are extremely informed and educated in facts not (make believe) non-existant problems.

The Republicans are NOT behaving in a "civic minded way" as you say. They are behaving in a politically partisan motivated way. They are purposeful in their creation of this voter ID law to make sure that it targets those groups of American citizens that tend to vote for Democratic candidates and who supported President Obama in the last Presidential election.

Why didn't the Republican's in PA make sure this law was in place before the Republican Primary? Who do they think they are fooling with the "test drive" of asking people during the primary for their ID's, but not requiring it?

We even have the Republican politician on video stating that the voter ID law in PA will help Romney win the state. Is that what you call "civic minded?"

Who is included in your "culture that does not trust government, does not value American Pride, and despises those that work hard and have success?" Who exactly are you talking about?

What matters is our Constitutional Rights, which are being violated by the Republican Party in PA and a few other states where they are in control of the state legislatures and governors seat. What matters is that a law has been created that is prejudice, calculated, evil, and is an attack on our democratic process.

The United States and PA already have "steps for ALL VOTERS to follow to ensure that our system is working free from corruption. Clearly you are not paying close attention to the facts. There has not been any voter impersonation fraud in PA and there is no reason to believe that there will be in the November 2012 elections. Get educated.

at Justwondering-my reply to your original post above is proven, as I read the posted reply above, indicating "our Constitutional Rights are being violated by the Republican Party in PA." I rest my case. Those nasty Republicans, wanting things done without fraud! How dare they impose such restrictions!

justwondering, My position is very clear. Have you ever heard of the Constitution? Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

Please tell us how the Republican voting law that targets specific groups of people, is Constitutional?

Your statement of fear is very telling. There have been a few very dark times in the history of the world in which people, just like you, were willing to look the other way when other people were having their human rights, civil rights, god given rights, violated. Anyone that does not challenge these baseless "boogie man" laws created by the Republican Party members in Harrisburg are repeating a dark history and willing to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America.

Funny how the Democrats will criticize Republicans as creating "boogeymen" stealing votes, while at the same time portraying Republicans as boogeymen coming to steal people's rights.

BTW ... There are indications that suburban white voters will be affected just as much as urban residents will be. (http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-30/news/32942988_1_voter-id-laws-marion-county-election-board-voter-fraud)

Justwondering--I'm glad to see you, as opposed to Earnest, are clearly paying close attention. Earnest wants the Constitution and Bill of Rights free from violation. One side looks at this as a clear violation, simply by requiring you prove you are who you say you are, the other side contents their rights are being violated because unsavory people will use tactics to skew the results of an election. Both of these arguments must be weighed! Whose rights are really being violated? The person who insists on maintaining the integrity of our voting system or the person who refuses to recognize menacing at polling place, ballots not posted at polls examined before voting, unions & Acorn permitted to register and take persons to polls without proof of citizenship, or conducting registration drives w/o validation. The painful truth is that the desire for Democrats to win, no matter how they get there, necessitated the need to put a stop to these crooked tactics. Upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights remains foremost in the minds of Conservatives.

justwondering says, "the fear is that this law will favor Republicans."

All examination of these laws are pointing to the fact that the laws do and will PROHIBIT American citizens who are registered voters from voting. Examination of these new laws has also has cast a light on the fact that they are crafted specifically to target those American citizens that tend to vote for Democratic candidates.

ANY American citizen that doesn't have a problem with a political party specifically crafting voting laws that "favor" as you say, one political party over another is not only disturbing, but also very dangerous as it undermines and threatens our democratic society.

Brennan Center of Justice has criticized the voter ID laws, saying that it sees them as PROHIBITIVE Voting Laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election.

justwondering, you still haven't been able to answer the question as to how the PA laws are Constitutional. - You have stated that your "afraid of Democrats" yet you have no concern about laws that may very well be undermining the United States Constitution and the rights of select Americans. And, you clearly have no objections of a political party crafting laws in an effort to undermine the will of the people, for representation through their votes. - Like I said, the world has a very dark history of people who look the other way when a persons rights are oppressed.

The Pennsylvania voter ID law is constitutional as is the similar law in Indiana in which the US Supreme Court ruled such laws constitutional by 6-3 vote. That makes it an even stronger ruling than the 5-4 squeaker the Affordable Care Act received.

The Pennsylvania Courts should also rule it so. Thirteen states require photo ID or alternative. Thirty states have various ID-at-the-poll requirements.

justwondering, anyone intent on fraud will likely still succeed. The ID law should deter casual fraud, but in precincts where fraud is acceptable, it will continue. However, I doubt it's a problem other than close elections; otherwise, why bother? I've no doubt it occurs, but since PA doesn't actively investigate, we will never know.

Earnes - State mandated medical procedures??????? You have jumped out of the pool on this one. You seem to believe that there are dark forces at work here and I wish you well in your pursuit to uncover what you believe to be a government intent on destroying you..........

I want my dime back "hammispig" penny lawyer. get a job.

We are discussing the photo ID law. The only type of fraud the law possibly could prevent is in-person voter impersonation fraud. The Bruce Marks case involved ABSENTEE ballot fraud:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The photo ID law would not have prevented the fraud at issue in the Marks case.

So, yes, there are documented examples of "voting fraud" (absentee voting fraud, registration fraud, poll worker fraud, etc.) out there, but there are no examples of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is why the Commonwealth was forced to stipulate it had no such evidence: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-commonwealth-stipulation/

This article sums up the issue: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/repeat-after-me-person-person-person

By the way, I would expect an expert in election law to actually know the name of the Marks lawsuit. Margaret Tartaglione (not "Tartagliana") was a defendant, but the case was Marks v. Stinson:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=19+F.3d+873+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39&case=5071163011663898421&scilh=0