The GOP war on voting

[Hoss]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/nation/la-na-ohio-voting-fight-20120927

[Teatownclown]

The GOPee cheaters at it again. Lying, cheating,stealing basterds.
If you are a member then you are guilty by association!
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/voter-registration-problems-widening-florida-154156242--election.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

[Teatownclown]

[Townsend]

Judge Puts Pennsylvania Voter ID Law On Hold Through Election

http://kwgs.com/post/judget-puts-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-hold-through-election

A judge is basically "postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential election," The Associated Press writes.

But in a ruling that's rather difficult to follow if you're not very familiar with the case, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson also says he "will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement."

Simpson ruled that a voter's "provisional ballot" cannot be declared invalid because of the lack of an ID and that the state's transitional effort to amend its laws regarding such votes must not take effect before Election Day — Nov. 6.

So, it appears from his ruling, election officials can ask for an ID. But a voter's lack of one will not invalidate his vote.

The ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.

As the AP wrote before the ruling was released:

"Pennsylvania's new law, among the toughest in the nation, is a signature accomplishment of Republicans in control of Pennsylvania state government who say they fear election fraud. But it is an emotional target for Democrats who call it a Jim Crow-style scheme to make it harder for their party's traditional voters, including young adults and minorities, who might not carry the right kind of ID or know about the law."

Update at 10:20 a.m. ET. Bottomline Is "Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year."

Harrisburg's The Patriot-News sums up the story this way:

"Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson has ruled that Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year. Simpson is postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential election. ...

"The ruling means people will be asked to show ID but will be allowed to vote even if they don't. That was also the policy in effect for the primary this year."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette explains Simpon's ruling this way:

"The injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law — when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it — through the November election."

[Townsend]

In latest voting-rights win, judge restores early voting in Ohio

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/05/14247418-in-latest-voting-rights-win-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio?lite

A federal judge has ruled that Ohio must restore full early voting hours for all voters—the latest high-profile win for voting-rights supporters.

Judge Joseph Hood of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled (pdf) in support of a lawsuit filed by the Obama campaign, arguing that Ohio was violating the constitution by allowing military service-members, but not civilians, to vote on the last three days before the election.

After coming to power in 2010, state Republicans scrapped early voting for all but the military, raising an uproar among voting-rights supporters and Democrats. Many African-Americans traditionally vote on the Sunday before the election, after attending church—a ritual known as "souls to the polls." Around 93,000 people are estimated to have used those three days to vote in 2008, when  Obama won the state.

Lean Forward reported last month that the coalition of military groups supporting the law in court was organized by national Republican operatives.

Secretary of State Jon Husted (pictured) gave no indication of whether he planned to appeal, saying in a statement his office is reviewing the decision.

On Tuesday, in another win for voting rights, a Pennsylvania judge blocked a state law requiring voters to present photo ID.

[nathanm]

Damn liberal judges. 

[Townsend]

Damn liberal judges. 

That Ohio thing is a motherflipping mind blower.

[nathanm]

That Ohio thing is a motherflipping mind blower.

It's all mind blowing. They don't even bother to hide their intent any more. At least in the past they'd make something up that made it seem like they weren't blatantly trying to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.

[Red Arrow]

It's all mind blowing. They don't even bother to hide their intent any more. At least in the past they'd make something up that made it seem like they weren't blatantly trying to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.

And in the past the "get out the vote" groups would try to hide the fact that they were targeting the minorities and poor while ignoring the likely voters who would not tow the Democratic Party line.

[nathanm]

And in the past the "get out the vote" groups would try to hide the fact that they were targeting the minorities and poor while ignoring the likely voters who would not tow the Democratic Party line.

You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

[Hoss]

You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

Funny how that works, huh?

[Red Arrow]

You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

I know you don't buy into the voter fraud thing. I have no problem with preventing people from voting who have no right to vote or who cannot be bothered to play by reasonable rules. The intentions of private "get out the vote" parties which are obviously partisan but claim to be "neutral" are offensive to me.  A reasonable voter ID law is acceptable to me.  We have all been back an forth on this.  I believe that any voter ID should be FREE and easy to get.  Some states do need to get their act together.  Surprisingly, Oklahoma's law is reasonable. At least I think Oklahoma's law is reasonable.

[nathanm]

I know you don't buy into the voter fraud thing. I have no problem with preventing people from voting who have no right to vote or who cannot be bothered to play by reasonable rules.

That's right, I don't buy into it. It's simply too small of a problem to be worth keeping some eligible voters (including Jim Cramer's dad, apparently) from voting, IMO.

Surprisingly, Oklahoma's law is reasonable. At least I think Oklahoma's law is reasonable.

I am also surprised that we allow the voter registration card to count as acceptable ID.

I'm still not sure why GOTV efforts offend you.

[Red Arrow]

That's right, I don't buy into it. It's simply too small of a problem to be worth keeping some eligible voters (including Jim Cramer's dad, apparently) from voting, IMO.

A few tweaks and everyone who is eligible to vote will.  Until then, I agree with some of the injunctions against the laws.

I'm still not sure why GOTV efforts offend you.

Because it only targets voters likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates.  If it were truly non-partisan, I would agree whole heartedly.  You may still disagree but you should understand.

[Red Arrow]

Nathan,

Do you buy your gasoline at QT on a credit card?  If so what do you think about being required to input your Zip Code?  QT (counter clerk) claims it is for security.  I think differently, believing it is for marketing surveys.