# 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:** 11
**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, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/201 "2012-08-17T15:33:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …DMV clerks are paid professionals who have received such training… Wait,what? DMV clerks are highly trained professionals, sophisticated in the dark arts of counterfeit ID and document fakery? I did not know this, how very interesting! Once again, I am impressed and surprised at your encyclopedic knowledge! Please forgive if, in the absence of any proof beyond your authoritative expertise, I remain skeptical. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/202 "2012-08-17T15:42:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? > > 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. I’ll ignore the divine edict nonsense. :rolleyes: 1. Have they been trained to evaluate driver’s licenses and determine that they match the person standing before them? If a person can read a voter registration card, evaluate a driver’s license, and tell if a signature matches, then they can read a Social Security card and some utility bills. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist. I’ve been to the DMV and they have very nice intelligent people working there, but I doubt that they are any more capable than the people working the poles. 2. I understand that. I’m just trying to determine what would in theory be acceptable to conservatives. I’m wondering if they would accept anything less burdensome to voters that would maintain the same level of security or if they would simply continue to find objections. You’ve already indicated in your point 1 that it wouldn’t be acceptable to you for reasons that I don’t find very persuasive. In any case, they already lessened the birth certificate requirements and, according to a Fox News story I linked to in a previous post, they’ve issued a voter ID to Viviette Applewhite who lacks the proper documentation, so apparently the ID law must have some flexibility, although I don’t know how much. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/203 "2012-08-17T16:02:31Z")
If the true goal was reliable voter id, all of these problems could be fixed. They could take their time like the Dems did in Rhode Island: take your time, do it right. But we have an emergency here, a pell-mell rush to get this thing in place before the next election! Absolutely cannot wait another minute…why? Oh, right, almost forgot, the urgent crisis in voter confidence! The State of Pennsylvania claimed such an ability, claimed that programs were in place to satisfy these concerns. As noted above, the judge did not require any proof on their part, he simply took their claims “at face value”. They were, apparently, deemed to be “credible” on no evidence whatsoever. (Anybody ask them about that? Where, exactly, are the offices, the workers, the budget for this wonderful program? The one you stood up in court and told the judge exists? Did the Plaintiffs not even have the option of questioning this bald statement?) If you know what the problem is, and you know how to fix it, and you don’t, the reasonable explanation is that you don’t want the problem fixed. Aside from a bald announcement before a supine judge, anybody see anything else to address the problems of the “discommoded”. As in flushed down dis commode. ---
**Author:** ![Sekigahara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@Sekigahara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sekigahara)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/204 "2012-08-17T16:06:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course verifying the voter’s identity can be established many ways. There is no reason it has to be a picture ID, right? In Canada you have three options: 1. Gov’t picture ID; 2. Two pieces of non-picture ID (like a credit card and even a phone bill with your name and address); 3. Someone can vouch for you at the poll, essentially confirming your identity. So yes, there are lots of ways to identify voters. The simple fact is that voter participation has been declining for years, to they point that increasing voter participation is much more important than detecting alleged fraud. Making it harder to vote de-legitimizes the process given that voting is the primary expression of democratic rights. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/205 "2012-08-17T16:34:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wait,what? DMV clerks are highly trained professionals, sophisticated in the dark arts of counterfeit ID and document fakery? I did not know this, how very interesting! Once again, I am impressed and surprised at your encyclopedic knowledge! > > Please forgive if, in the absence of any proof beyond your authoritative expertise, I remain skeptical. I had a criminal case once in which the subject arose – but again, why do I care what you find persuasive? I don’t have the burden of any proof here at all. I don’t have to convince you of a blessed thing. The law exists right now. It’s in effect. It will be followed in November. I have to do nothing to preserve the status quo. The burden of proof is on your side. You may, if you wish, continue to exercise it by announcing how I have failed to convince you. That’d be grand. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/206 "2012-08-17T16:39:23Z")
> [@Sekigahara](#): > > In Canada you have three options: 1. Gov’t picture ID; 2. Two pieces of non-picture ID (like a credit card and even a phone bill with your name and address); 3. Someone can vouch for you at the poll, essentially confirming your identity. So yes, there are lots of ways to identify voters. > > The simple fact is that voter participation has been declining for years, to they point that increasing voter participation is much more important than detecting alleged fraud. > Making it harder to vote de-legitimizes the process given that voting is the primary expression of democratic rights. I agree completely. The idea that the level of security is hurt significantly by two non-picture IDs or the vouching is fantasy. I’d also say that intelligent public policy would seem to require that if you mandate photo ID for voting, you must first get a photo ID into every potential voter’s hand. That’s so obvious that the only reason I can imagine one can’t see it, is partisan zeal to win. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/207 "2012-08-17T16:45:37Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I’ll ignore the divine edict nonsense. :rolleyes: > > 1. Have they been trained to evaluate driver’s licenses and determine that they match the person standing before them? If a person can read a voter registration card, evaluate a driver’s license, and tell if a signature matches, then they can read a Social Security card and some utility bills. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist. I’ve been to the DMV and they have very nice intelligent people working there, but I doubt that they are any more capable than the people working the poles. The specifics of my knowledge come from Virginia, where I once had a client whose fake ID business came to the attention of authorities. Admittedly I’m assuming that other states’ DMV organizations have similar training and materials; in Virginia, the resources available to the DMV clerks included exemplars of birth certificate from from each state, licenses from each state, and guidelines on how to compare signatures. Poll workers are volunteers who get none of that, have none of that, and can’t reliably do that. A photo is necessary because I can pick up your utility bills and your Social Security card, or fake either with a home computer and color printer. Neither of those have anything like holographic anti-counterfeiting measures. > [@](#): > > 1. I understand that. I’m just trying to determine what would in theory be acceptable to conservatives. I’m wondering if they would accept anything less burdensome to voters that would maintain the same level of security or if they would simply continue to find objections. You’ve already indicated in your point 1 that it wouldn’t be acceptable to you for reasons that I don’t find very persuasive. Well, then, I guess we’ll agree to disagree, since I do find those reasons persuasive. And as I have pointed out previously, since I don’t have to persuade you of anything, ending this discussion by agreeing to disagree leaves the law in effect, an outcome which pleases me greatly. > [@](#): > > In any case, they already lessened the birth certificate requirements and, according to a Fox News story I linked to in a previous post, they’ve issued a voter ID to Viviette Applewhite who lacks the proper documentation, so apparently the ID law must have some flexibility, although I don’t know how much. Of course. The law gives the DMV Secretary discretion to issue an ID (and delegate that authority) and the state has always said it would work with those people on a case by case basis who were stuck. The only ones denying that have been the ones on your side of the argument. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/208 "2012-08-17T16:46:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s so obvious that the only reason I can imagine one can’t see it, is partisan zeal to win. Fortunately for us all, public policy is not made based on your imagination, or lack thereof. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/209 "2012-08-17T16:51:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > …The State of Pennsylvania claimed such an ability, claimed that programs were in place to satisfy these concerns. As noted above, the judge did not require any proof on their part, he simply took their claims “at face value”. **They were, apparently, deemed to be “credible” on no evidence whatsoever**. > > (Anybody ask them about that? Where, exactly, are the offices, the workers, the budget for this wonderful program? The one you stood up in court and told the judge exists? Did the Plaintiffs not even have the option of questioning this bald statement?)… It’s up to the plaintiff to question the “credibility” of the law or the defendant. The plaintiff’s lawyer can object to anything presented by the defendant’s side. The judge isn’t there to make the plaintiff’s case for them. The State “claims” the right to create and pass legislation. The plaintiff objects to the law that was passed. The plaintiff presented no one that will be disenfranchised by the law. Was the judge suppose to accept the plaintiff’s unproven “suggestion” that such person’s exist? The “We can’t prove it but everyone knows it’s true” argument doesn’t hold up in court. ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/210 "2012-08-17T16:53:48Z")
> [@](#): > > …but again, why do I care what you find persuasive? I don’t have the burden of any proof here at all. I don’t have to convince you of a blessed thing. The law exists right now… Well, then, I suppose you could stop trying? If all you want to advise is that the law is passed, fuck you if you can’t take a joke, and its all legal and constitutional…why say anything at all? Its not like anybody here doesn’t know the law has been passed. The only information you have to offer is the level of your smug satisfaction. And if that’s the case, you really don’t have anything more to add. But you do, hoss, you do keep arguing for the rightness and justice of this, you do put forth arguments, you only dive down your hidey hole when confronted with inconvenient facts. Saying “Fuck you guys, I’m going home” only works if you actually do it, if you come back in and try to argue, sorta takes the snap out of it. But, hey! Freak freely! But after the fifth or sixth time you get up on the balcony and sing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina”, its older than Madonna. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/211 "2012-08-17T16:58:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fortunately for us all, public policy is not made based on your imagination, or lack thereof. I am forced to use my imagination, since I haven’t seen any reasonable arguments for a policy that keeps thousands of times as many people from voting as it does from fraudulently voting. There is simply no defense for that. I know your throw your hands up and demand that voter confidence is worth it. But the obvious response is voter confidence isn’t served by keeping thousands of times as many legitimate people from voting as would have cast fraudulent ballots. ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/212 "2012-08-17T17:00:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It’s up to the plaintiff to question the “credibility” of the law or the defendant. The plaintiff’s lawyer can object to anything presented by the defendant’s side. The judge isn’t there to make the plaintiff’s case for them. > > The State “claims” the right to create and pass legislation. The plaintiff objects to the law that was passed. The plaintiff presented no one that will be disenfranchised by the law. Was the judge suppose to accept the plaintiff’s unproven “suggestion” that such person’s exist? > > The “We can’t prove it but everyone knows it’s true” argument doesn’t hold up in court. Well, we’re outa my depth here, legal wise, I once delivered pizza to a law school, and read a John Grisham novel in Greyhound desperation, but that’s it. From what I gather, it seems that the judges ruling about the credibility is definitive, even though he stated clearly that no evidence was offered, nor solicited. He took their word “at face value”. I would imagine if the Plaintiffs were entitled to challenge that, they would have. Seems pretty obvious, but TG,IANAL… ---
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/213 "2012-08-17T17:07:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > DMV clerks are highly trained professionals, sophisticated in the dark arts of counterfeit ID and document fakery? Honestly, if I need someone to suss out a fake ID, I’d go with the DMV clerk over the Blue Haired Ladies they dust off every 4 years to work the election tables. On a side note, while it’s nice that the DMV has discretion in issuing IDs for voting, a person’s voting rights should not be subject to the discretion of a DMV employee. ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/214 "2012-08-17T17:09:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Poll workers are volunteers who get none of that, have none of that, and can’t reliably do that. A photo is necessary because I can pick up your utility bills and your Social Security card, or fake either with a home computer and color printer. Neither of those have anything like holographic anti-counterfeiting measures. But the DMV workers _can_ detect fake utility bills and Social Security cards? Are they trained on the appearance of every utility company’s bills, every possible deed, every possible lease? Yes, I find your reasons unpersuasive, and I’ve explained why. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/215 "2012-08-17T17:15:47Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > … > On a side note, while it’s nice that the DMV has discretion in issuing IDs for voting, a person’s voting rights should not be subject to the discretion of a DMV employee. That’s an excellent point. A DMV employee deciding who can and can’t vote, how wrong is that? Isn’t it the conservatives who always use DMVs as an example (justified or not) of government incompetence? And now here we are, with DMV employees deciding who can and can’t vote. And the conservatives seem to love it. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/216 "2012-08-17T18:18:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > **I am forced to use my imagination** , since I haven’t seen any reasonable arguments for a policy that keeps thousands of times as many people from voting as it does from fraudulently voting. > > There is simply no defense for that. I know your throw your hands up and demand that voter confidence is worth it. But the obvious response is voter confidence isn’t served by keeping thousands of times as many legitimate people from voting as would have cast fraudulent ballots. As interesting as your “imagination” may be, it isn’t proof. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to provide a credible witness(s) to prove their case. They failed to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/217 "2012-08-17T18:21:53Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > As interesting as your “imagination” may be, it isn’t proof. Reread my post, you didn’t understand it. In this instance my imagination is based on rational arguments for this policy decision. None of the GOP boosters in this thread have offered an reasoned argument, so I am left to imagine what arguments there could be. > [@](#): > > The plaintiff had ample opportunity to provide a credible witness(s) to prove their case. They failed to do so. This is to make it more difficult to vote, not impossible. Finding someone for whom it is impossible to vote is the wrong standard. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/218 "2012-08-17T18:21:57Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > …On a side note, while it’s nice that the DMV has discretion in issuing IDs for voting, a person’s voting rights should not be subject to the **discretion of a DMV employee**. The State employees of the DMV follow the rules and regulations of the DMV. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/219 "2012-08-17T18:25:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Reread my post, you didn’t understand it. In this instance my imagination is based on rational arguments for this policy decision. > > None of your GOP boosters in this thread have offered an reasoned argument, so I am left to imagine what arguments there could be. > > This is to make it more difficult to vote, not impossible. Finding someone for whom it is impossible to vote is the wrong standard. I can only suggest that you become a plaintiff and make “your” case to the court. Good luck. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/220 "2012-08-17T18:52:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, then, I suppose you could stop trying? If all you want to advise is that the law is passed, fuck you if you can’t take a joke, and its all legal and constitutional…why say anything at all? Its not like anybody here doesn’t know the law has been passed. The only information you have to offer is the level of your smug satisfaction. And if that’s the case, you really don’t have anything more to add. > > But you do, hoss, you do keep arguing for the rightness and justice of this, you do put forth arguments, you only dive down your hidey hole when confronted with inconvenient facts. > > Saying “Fuck you guys, I’m going home” only works if you actually do it, if you come back in and try to argue, sorta takes the snap out of it. But, hey! Freak freely! But after the fifth or sixth time you get up on the balcony and sing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina”, its older than Madonna. Not at all. Although I don’t bear the burden of proof, if I see a particularly weak argument being made, I’m happy to step in and shred it. That doesn’t mean I somehow assume the ultimate burden of proof. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=12)