# Pennsylvania Upholds Voter ID Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 15, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582 "2012-08-15T17:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/181 "2012-08-17T08:22:06Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Well, now that I’ve[Googled it for you](http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20113063-245/e-voting-machines-vulnerable-to-remote-vote-changing/), I guess your confidence in the voting process is at a new [low](http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/)? So this is a serious concern? And… you contend that because Republicans ignore this concern, it shows their true motivation with regard to Voter ID laws is not voter confidence? The first question that comes to mind is… in states controlled by Democrats, are these concerns being addressed or ignored? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/182 "2012-08-17T09:39:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That might be so, if we were talking about a proposed law. > We’re actually discussing a law that has already passed. If you want to repeal it, then it is up to you to shoulder the burden of proof. I don’t want to repeal it, I just want to vent my spleen. They don’t care about voter fraud, this is their “get out the vote” drive. If they could, they’d shut down voting locations in poor areas across the state, but that would be too obvious, there’s no cover, they would lose the court case. This is their way to stop poor people from voting, and they’ve attached a paper thin veneer to it. It’s not that the law is invalid, or unconstitutional, it’s that the law is a steaming pile of horseshit. When it comes to proposed laws, I can pretty well guarantee that the next one that comes up won’t have any studies behind it, and it won’t matter to the people voting for it. Because it’s not about the fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/183 "2012-08-17T09:59:39Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I don’t want to repeal it, I just want to vent my spleen. > > They don’t care about voter fraud, this is their “get out the vote” drive. If they could, they’d shut down voting locations in poor areas across the state, but that would be too obvious, there’s no cover, they would lose the court case. This is their way to stop poor people from voting, and they’ve attached a paper thin veneer to it. > > It’s not that the law is invalid, or unconstitutional, it’s that the law is a steaming pile of horseshit. > When it comes to proposed laws, I can pretty well guarantee that the next one that comes up won’t have any studies behind it, and it won’t matter to the people voting for it. Because it’s not about the fraud. I’m in no position to enforce forum choice, but we have forums to rant - vent spleens - without any expectation that the ranter can adduce facts in support of his position. We also have a forum for less vitriolic sharing of opinions without any expectation that proof or structured argument will underly the offered opinions. If I announced, without proof or argument, that the reason Democrats disfavor these laws is that they want and need illegal votes to win, I would rightly be criticized. Wy is I appropriate for you to announce, without proof or argument, that Republicans have such a crass motive? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/184 "2012-08-17T10:21:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Making voting SLIGHTLY more difficult for a FEW voters. Yes, that’s exactly my position. I guess this comes down to a disagreement as to how difficult it is for some people to find the time to sit for hours in a PennDOT photo center. For you and I it may be a slight inconvenience, for people who need to take time off from a second or third job, and find transportation, and find someone to watch the kids, it’s a hurdle that they may decide just isn’t worth it. Of course, if they have health issues, they can just get an absentee ballot and bypass the ID requirements. So could potential vote fraudsters, but apparently that fact has no effect on voter confidence. Voter confidence is an insincere bullshit argument on the part of the right, otherwise they’d be vigorously calling for the investigation of high profile cases, since high profile cases, especially ones that aren’t prosecuted or at least investigated, are the most likely to erode public confidence. Mind you, I’m not accusing \*\*Bricker \*\* of insincerety. I’m sure that he’s sincere and that he supports a legitimate investigation of the questionable voting activities of, for example, a gentleman named [Mitt Romney.](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-20/politics/31371937_1_ann-romney-massachusetts-governor-residency) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/185 "2012-08-17T10:25:15Z")
If it’s so onerous, then isn’t that a big problem that affects a lot more than voting? I know it sounds like I’m beating a dead horse here, but wouldn’t the right answer be to make THAT process easier? Couldn’t we start by getting rid of the post-9/11 requirements? It’s not like the terrorists faked their identity. The requirements are stupid and accomplish nothing except to make it hard for people to participate in American life. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/186 "2012-08-17T10:38:09Z")
Bricker, the Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai has stated publicly that the Voter ID law will help Romney win the state. This suggests that senior Republicans believe that a significant number of voters, Obama voters in particular, will be affected by the law. He may be incorrect, but it is clearly his belief, and goes to motive. [Video of Turzai](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8) One can charitably presume that he means there is a significant amount of Voter Impersonation, with those fraudulent votes going largely to Obama. Yet, according to [AP](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUZ4K9qJs8-tVbHOjRq5zgL9bSuQ?docId=f09da751582a4ee28e3d208349931658) > [@](#): > > Government lawyers acknowledged that they are “not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud.” Not aware of any incidents. Interesting… So, we have: 1. No documented incidents of voter impersonation 2. A law sponsored by Republicans intended to prevent voter impersonation 3. Which the Republicans believe will significantly benefit Romney in the polls. You tell me about their motive. You give me a sensible explanation of their motive. The only explanation that works is that Turzai believes that a type of fraud, of which there are zero known incidents, is actually widespread enough to be expected to affect the presidential election. Personally, I don’t think he’s that stupid. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/187 "2012-08-17T10:49:21Z")
Given that there have been no terrorism incidents involving fake identity in the US, what is the motivation for making it harder to get ID? Could it be that both parties hate poor people and want to prevent them from getting bank accounts or jobs? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/188 "2012-08-17T11:00:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If it’s so onerous, then isn’t that a big problem that affects a lot more than voting? I know it sounds like I’m beating a dead horse here, but wouldn’t the right answer be to make THAT process easier? > > Couldn’t we start by getting rid of the post-9/11 requirements? It’s not like the terrorists faked their identity. The requirements are stupid and accomplish nothing except to make it hard for people to participate in American life. Of course we should be making it easier, but shouldn’t we at least hold off on these new requirements until that’s been done? Here’s a study by the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. > **[Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: Is PennDOT Ready? | PDF | Voter Id Laws In The...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/101960585/Pennsylvania-Budget-Policy-Center-study-on-PA-s-VOTER-ID-effort)** > > The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center says the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may stand as a barrier for voters to get proper photo ID. Under Pennsylvania's new voter ID law, voters must show valid photo ID at the polls. Valid ID... > [@](#): > > The first challenge facing registered voters seeking to obtain an ID is getting to a PennDOT center. The agency operates 71 Driver License centers, where individuals must frst go to make an application for an ID. Those centers are open limited hours and days, and individuals seeking an ID must wait in line with others seeking driver’s licenses, commercial licenses and other PennDOT products. > > Nine rural counties have no driver’s license centers at all, and in an additional 20 counties containing 1.5 million people, Driver License centers are open three or fewer days a week. Only seven of 67 counties have more than one driver’s license center. > > The PennDOT website indicates that its locations host both Driver’s License centers and Photo License centers. To obtain a photo ID, a voter must first visit the Driver’s License center which processes the photo ID application,then go to the Photo License center which issues the ID. The hours and days of operation for the two centers are not the same, so on a given visit, one may be open but the other may be closed. I happen to live near a PennDOT photo center. Until this issue came up, I never realized how inconvenient it is for a lot of Pennsylvanians to obtain and renew driver’s licenses. It’s definitely an issue. To extend those inefficiencies to the voting process, which I would argue is more important even than driving, is unacceptable. Of course, voter confidence is more important than actually being able to vote, so I guess it’s a sacrifice we’ll have to make. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/189 "2012-08-17T11:05:45Z")
The thing is, the only way someone doesn’t have ID, no matter how hard it is to get, is someone who relies completely on another for care. You can’t work without ID, can’t open a bank account, can’t travel. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/190 "2012-08-17T11:06:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The thing is, the only way someone doesn’t have ID, no matter how hard it is to get, is someone who relies completely on another for care. You can’t work without ID, can’t open a bank account, can’t travel. Can’t vote? None of those things you mentioned is guaranteed by the Pennsylvania constitution. Voting is. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/191 "2012-08-17T11:18:31Z")
Actually: Qualifications of Electors Section 1. Every citizen 21 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. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election. [http://www.pahouse.com/pa\_const.htm](http://www.pahouse.com/pa_const.htm) We talk about the right to vote a lot, but there really is no such right. The US, and every state, has regulations declaring who is eligible and who is not. Verification of that eligibility is subject to reasonable regulation. As a matter of fact, I can think of no actual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights where ID requirements are unacceptable. Heck, we’ve got the same people saying that there’s a right to vote without ID, demanding that people who advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate must identify themselves. And the right to engage in political speech is actually a universal right, unlike voting. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/192 "2012-08-17T11:50:04Z")
> [@Crawford](#): > > Carter-Baker Report Available [here](http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/). > [@Report](#): > > To build confidence, the Commission recommends a modern electoral system built on five pillars: (1) a universal and up-to-date registration list, accessible to the public; (2) a uniform voter identification system **that increases, not impedes, participation** ; (3) measures to enhance ballot integrity and voter access; (4) a voter-verifiable paper trail and improved security of voting systems; and (5) electoral institutions that are impartial, professional and independent. Have Republicans pushing for voter ID law met even the minimal standards offered by the report? The report makes reference to the 2004 _New York Times_ poll on confidence, which showed a plurality of voters lacking confidence in their votes being counted properly. No such poll is referred to in the case of voter fraud. Such a cite is not evidence that voter confidence will be increased by instituting voter ID. Here’s another quote from the report: > [@Report](#): > > Second, we propose that all states require a valid photo ID card, which would be a slightly modified REAL ID or a photo ID that is based on an EAC-template (which is equivalent to the REAL ID without the drivers license). However instead of allowing the ID to be a new barrier to voting, we propose using it to **enfranchise** new and more voters than ever before. The states would play a much more affirmative role of reaching out to the underserves communities by providing them more offices, including mobile ones, to register them and provide photo IDs free of charge. In addition, we offer procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the card is not abused and that voters will not be **disenfranchised** because of the need for an ID. Suddenly they have all sorts of onerous requirements and disfavoured language. Care to establish where Republicans have met the bipartisan requirements of this report? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/193 "2012-08-17T11:54:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually: Qualifications of Electors > Section 1. > > Every citizen 21 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. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election. > > [http://www.pahouse.com/pa\_const.htm](http://www.pahouse.com/pa_const.htm) > > We talk about the right to vote a lot, but there really is no such right. The US, and every state, has regulations declaring who is eligible and who is not. Verification of that eligibility is subject to reasonable regulation. > > As a matter of fact, I can think of no actual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights where ID requirements are unacceptable. Heck, we’ve got the same people saying that there’s a right to vote without ID, demanding that people who advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate must identify themselves. And the right to engage in political speech is actually a universal right, unlike voting. “Reasonable regulation”. Changing those regulations at the last minute in a way that puts an uneven burden on different segements of the population is not reasonable. We’ve gotten by fine until now without these requirements. Nobody has shown that this kind of fraud actually occurs in numbers greater than the number of those who will be burdened. In fact, nobody has shown that it occurs at all. Let’s wait, beef up the system for supplying ID, and make sure that everyone who needs and wants it can get it easily. That, unfortunately will take longer than till November. Or how about this for a compromise. PA has loosened up on the birth certificate requirement because some people simply don’t have one and are finding it difficult or impossible to obtain one. So now you can get an ID if you can provide a social security card, and two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill, deed, or lease. So why not simply accept those at the polling place? This wouldn’t lessen security. Anyone who could fake those at the polling place could fake them at the ID center. This would solve the supposed fraud issue, at least as well as requiring the photo ID, and it would remove a large part of the burden. How would that be unacceptable? ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/194 "2012-08-17T12:11:47Z")
I’m pretty sure that what I’m about to say has been touched on earlier in this thread, but the bottom line is that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law will only prove to be problematic if the state ends up going to Romney and the margin of victory is less than the number of provisional ballots. Seriously, such a scenario would create a giant shit-storm of epic proportions that could rival the fiasco in Florida in the '00 election. But that just isn’t going to happen. Pennsylvania is simply too blue of a state, and regardless of how this law plays out the state is still safe Obama territory, period. Moreover, for how controversial this law is it’s important to remember that _past_ this presidential election it will become a non-issue going forward; the entire basis for how onerous the voter ID requirement is lies in the fact that it’s being mandated during the 2012 election and not _after_ the election takes place. In the long run, people will just adapt to the law and Pennsylvania will remain a Democratic state. Keep in mind, all of this is coming from a guy who is deeply concerned about voter suppression efforts that the GOP seems to be undertaking in several battleground states across the country. I was initially very worried about Pennsylvania’s voter ID law ostensibly ceding the state to Romney, but now I’ve just come to accept it as a (presumably) settled, albeit controversial, hurdle that that state’s electorate will now have to face. Frankly, I think efforts such as voter purges taking place in states like Florida (and as of a few days ago, [Iowa](http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120810/NEWS09/308100041/0/sports1301/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1)) are far more troubling than Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. Ohio’s early voting fiasco is also worrisome, but even in that case I can’t help but think that people will just adapt to the new early voting conditions and still vote for Obama. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/195 "2012-08-17T12:21:41Z")
I wonder what, if any, the legal implications of this are? It’s not even clear how she got the ID. [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id-plaintiff-gets-card-amid-appeal](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id-plaintiff-gets-card-amid-appeal) > [@](#): > > Pa. Voter ID plaintiff gets card amid appeal > PHILADELPHIA – One of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit to block Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID law has been granted the identification necessary to cast her ballot despite lacking the documentation required to get the card. > > Ninety-three-year-old Viviette Applewhite received her temporary identification card on Thursday, the same day her attorneys appealed a judge’s ruling upholding the law Applewhite sued over. > > Applewhite, of Philadelphia, testified in July that she was unable to get the necessary documents for an ID because she was adopted early in life, so the name on her birth certificate doesn’t match her other paperwork. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/196 "2012-08-17T12:27:29Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > …Pennsylvania is simply too blue of a state… Yet somehow we put a Republican in the Governor’s mansion and Republicans in charge of the state legislature and they managed to pass this bill. I wish that I could be as sanguine as you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/197 "2012-08-17T12:35:59Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I wonder what, if any, the legal implications of this are? It’s not even clear how she got the ID. > [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id-plaintiff-gets-card-amid-appeal](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id-plaintiff-gets-card-amid-appeal) Not much. She wasn’t the only plaintiff and everyone acknowledged that PennDOT could exercise discretion. Probably not the best PR for plaintiffs though. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/198 "2012-08-17T12:39:03Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Yet somehow we put a Republican in the Governor’s mansion and Republicans in charge of the state legislature and they managed to pass this bill. I wish that I could be as sanguine as you. Hey man, shit happens. Wisconsin is a pretty damn blue state as well yet Scott Walker and the GOP were somehow elected to be in charge of its state government, and in spite of that it’s still far more likely that it’ll go for Obama in 2012 than his GOP opponent. My own state (CA), which hasn’t gone for a Republican POTUS since _1988_ just got through having a GOP governor (ol’ Arnie) who had been elected to two terms in that office. It’s all in the ebbs and flows of state politics, but there’s still a disconnect between what the public might choose at the state level versus what they’ll decide nationally. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/199 "2012-08-17T12:49:31Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > “Reasonable regulation”. Changing those regulations at the last minute in a way that puts an uneven burden on different segements of the population is not reasonable. Why do you get to decide what is, and is not, reasonable? Don’t we have a system to resolve such questions? HOw come suddenly it’s by divine edict of King Davidm I? > [@](#): > > So why not simply accept those at the polling place? This wouldn’t lessen security. Anyone who could fake those at the polling place could fake them at the ID center. This would solve the supposed fraud issue, at least as well as requiring the photo ID, and it would remove a large part of the burden. > > How would that be unacceptable? Two reasons: 1. Poll workers are part-time, unpaid volunteers, who don’t have the training or expertise to examine a large number of different format documents and determine their authenticity. DMV clerks are paid professionals who have received such training. 2. Because that’s not the scheme that was passed into law and upheld by the courts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/200 "2012-08-17T15:26:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …If I announced, without proof or argument, that the reason Democrats disfavor these laws is that they want and need illegal votes to win, I would rightly be criticized. Wy is I appropriate for you to announce, without proof or argument, that Republicans have such a crass motive? Darn good bet that some of them do. Only question is how many. Amongst a group that is known to have a high percentage of people who (apparently sincerely) believe that Obama is a Muslim, why would we imagine that there is some limit to their credulity, when so many believe something that is certifiably batshit? Either they believe, all evidence notwithstanding, that voter impersonation fraud is real, tangible and effective, or they are simply engaged in an unprincipled grasp for power. So, take your pick, stupid or cynical. I can forgive stupidity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=11)