Well, minus one for my predictive ability.
And maybe this isn’t terrible. The law is valid. If it gets put into place for the 2014 midterms elections, that removes the claim that the proponents are trying to rush it into place.
Wait. It’s a little confusing. They can ask for ID but a provisional ballot cannot be rejected for lack of ID. I’m not sure what that means.
Oh, that’s a different – and much better – story!
I don’t believe that’s correct. I’ve only scanned the ruling but that and what I’ve read on news sites leads me to believe that this election will be handled the same as the primaries were: you will be asked for ID but if you do not provide it you can still vote without casting a provisional ballot. The first relevant section in the ruling I found was:
The transition period refers to what was done during the primaries. The provisional ballot procedures refers to both the need to present ID to get your provisional ballot counted AND having to cast one if you don’t have ID in the first place. I think. I haven’t read it too closely at this point.
ETA: Next quote that clinches it:
I still don’t get it. Can they ask for a My Little Pony as well? I don’t mean to be snarky…I’m genuinely curious why they can “ask” for something, for no practical reason or effect whatsoever.
ETA: Unless it’s sort of to “train” (or “sensitize”) people to start thinking in terms of IDs, so they’ll be more likely to get one (if they lack one) in the next year or two. Could that be it?
This article explains it in more detail but I’m still confused.
No, it doesn’t, they were prevented from doing so. If you try to steal my car and the local constable stops you, that doesn’t “remove the claim” that you were trying to steal my car. It means you got caught.
I have no intrinsic problem with voter ID, and my view on that is shared widely by those of us to the left of Calvin Coolidge. I would cheerfully applaud a sincere voter ID effort allied with a massive voter registration project, with the explicit intent of providing voter ID as conveniently and easily as humanly possible. Said so, several times. This might also have the effect of “reaching out” and encouraging the disaffected citizens, to remind them that they are fully as valid as the rest of us, to include them. “Voter confidence” would be much enhanced, in my estimation.
That such an effort would almost certainly expand the numbers of registered Democrat leaning voters is a prospect that I accept with, as you put it so well, “aplomb”. Or, to paraphrase The Master, “the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”.
As to my description of the events in Massachusetts as being “sordid”, I regret that I have failed to meet your daunting requirements. Suffice to say that the pristine purity of your ethical standards is a beacon to us all.
Bricker, I believe that you previously acknowledged that voter fraud is a very rare occurrence. So vanishingly small, that it’d have the difference in votes would have to be ~200 or smaller for it to actually be a factor. (Note: I actually believe it to be much much smaller, but I’m pretty sure that’s what you’re on record saying.)
If your intent is to add additional safeguards to the franchise and increase voter confidence, what’s the rush? You’re getting your way; why force it through this election if not for the fact that you’re hoping that it DOES suppress Dem turnout?
That is the explanation that has been given: that the short transition period was meant to train both the voters and the poll workers.
I’ve now read a couple articles that describes the situation to be as davidm did above (including the article he linked to). At the moment I’m chalking that up to reporters getting confused by the ruling. But I guess we’ll see.
Thanks, Mithras (and davidm).
Now I’m confused. Going only by how the law looks after his injunction, it appears closer to the reports that you’d have to cast a provisional ballot if you don’t present ID.
ETA: Now I’m pretty sure that’s the only way to read it.
Yes, but the requirement that you hustle down to an election board to show your ID in order for your provisional ballot to be counted has been squashed. Previous to this, if you didn’t get there within six days (?), your ballot was tossed.
TG, IANAL but this ruling carries the scent of petulant compliance, it appears to me that Judge Simpson bent every effort to keep the repulsive elements of this law intact, while still meeting the minimal standards so as not to be further spanked by the higher court.
Odd. Seems to be saying that you can be asked for a voter ID, and if you walk away at that point, too bad for you. But you will still be allowed to vote, and vote effectively, if you press the point. Your provisional ballot is not actually “provisional”, you need take no further steps for it to be counted.
Confusion about that is likely to suppress some fraction of undesirable voters, so Judge Simpson has managed to advance the Republican cause, at least to a lesser degree than originally hoped.
And now I’m seeing news reports changed to say that the officials on both sides are claiming the ruling means you will be able to vote without ID and without using a provisional ballot. As that matches what it appears the judge’s intention was, does that imply that he missed something in the injunction? Specifically, the change to section 1210(a.4)(1) (WARNING: PDF) changing you from needing to use a provisional ballot if you do not present an ID the first time you vote to needing to use the provisional ballot if you do not present an ID any time you vote.
What a silly sentence. The proponents were of course trying to rush it in place for the purpose of stealing this particular election. Now we need to fight the bastards tooth and nail for the next election and the one after that. The Republicans are ruthless bastards who don’t give a flying fuck how they stay in power, only that they stay in power.
As a Pennsylvanian, I take extra great pleasure in saying, HA! Bricker, eat a big bag of my shit, you simpering conniving little bitch.
Of fucking course the intent was to rush this into place. How can you disenfranchise people if you give them adequate time to get the requisite ID?
Fucking hell.
Bricker, I ask this in all seriousness… are you having a stroke? Read your last sentence again. Does it make ANY FUCKING SENSE to you? The law’s proponents wanted it to be in place by this election, it got blocked, so they’ll be forced to wait for the 2014 midterms, so that shows they weren’t trying to rush it? Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. I’m starting to feel sorry for all your previous clients. Even if they raped and murdered their grandmas while fisting kittens, they’d still have a basic right to defence lawyers with better grasp of basic logic than you have.
Come on, be nice. it’s not Bricker’s fault if he’s a simpering conniving little bitch.
Yes it is. 
Just like it’s his fault he can’t back off gracefully, if at all, even now.
IOW, Bricker: “It’s legal! Hahahah, sucker! Eat it!” :rolleyes:
Come to think of it, doesn’t he need to join Starving Artist in a rousing chorus of “Winning!” ?
While I may have been able to phrase my statement a bit more clearly, it’s still pretty freaking obvious that I meant the law’s application in 2014 will not be vulnerable to the same charge of rushing it into effect. In still other words, the change to 2014 removes the future argument that the law is being rushed into place. I was not – nor could any fair minded person believe – that I was saying this change shows they weren’t trying to rush it NOW.