# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/21 "2012-08-15T19:47:46Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Um, that’s a Bricker quote and I kind of resent being attached to it. Ah, sorry. I see what happened there. There still isn’t going to be an answer from him, of course. The current Pit thread on this topic is highly informative about the motivations behind these laws, for anyone who hasn’t dared go there yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/22 "2012-08-15T19:51:35Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > From the article cited above: > > "Among the plaintiffs who tried to block the law is a 93-year-old woman who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1960 but would now be unable to vote. > > Read more: [Judge upholds Pennsylvania voter ID requirement – New York Daily News](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/judge-upholds-pennsylvania-voter-id-requirement-article-1.1136769#ixzz23e6ApU7Z) > " Yes. And that plaintiff actually testified by video deposition. And the judge observed that contrary to the petitioners’ claims, she certainly qualified for absentee ballot voting, and even if she did chose to appear in person to vote (she testified by video deposition because she was too infirm to make it to the courthouse, and had to stop in the middle of her video because she had problems) – even if she did appear in person, she would be entitled to cast a provisional ballot. So – the 93 year old who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT unable to vote. That’s what happens to these kinds of claims: on closer examination, the truth appears. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/23 "2012-08-15T19:54:04Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > The only thing they’d have to do to disqualify a witness would be to prove that ID’s exist. That’s not the friggin’ point, and you know it. What was the point? Seems to me the point was to establish grounds for an injunction under Pennsylvania law. What do you imagine the point was? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/24 "2012-08-15T19:54:48Z")
And what happens to the provisional ballot? _As you know_ :dubious: , if the ID is not forthcoming later, then the ballot is thrown out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/25 "2012-08-15T19:55:39Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > No it isn’t. Yes, it is. Ha! Ha! Ha! See, I can do that all day. You think it isn’t. I think it is. Goo dthing we have a system to resolve such differences in opinion, eh? ---
**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 15, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/26 "2012-08-15T20:06:24Z")
An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that if the Voter ID law keeps more legitimate votes from happening than illegal votes, it is a bad law. Since we know that 750k people are kept from voting, all we’d need to do is see evidence for 750k or more illegal votes. Which we don’t have, since actual voter fraud happens something like once for every 15 million votes. Bricker’s assertion that voter confidence makes the law worth it is utter nonsense, of course. Keeping nearly a million people from voting to keep perhaps one fraudulent vote damages the integrity of the election much, much more. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/27 "2012-08-15T20:09:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that if the Voter ID law keeps more legitimate votes from happening than illegal votes, it is a bad law. > > Since we know that 750k people are kept from voting, all we’d need to do is see evidence for 750k or more illegal votes. Which we don’t have, since actual voter fraud happens something like once for every 15 million votes. > > Bricker’s assertion that voter confidence makes the law worth it is utter nonsense, of course. Keeping nearly a million people from voting to keep perhaps one fraudulent vote damages the integrity of the election much, much more. We don’t know that 750K people are kept from voting. That is an untrue statement – in fact, it’s a statement that the judge specifically found to be untrue. ---
**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 15, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/28 "2012-08-15T20:14:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We don’t know that 750K people are kept from voting. That is an untrue statement – in fact, it’s a statement that the judge specifically found to be untrue. Wait, the 750k statement has a high standard of evidence, but we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? Interesting that. How fortunate for you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/29 "2012-08-15T20:15:12Z")
Any number more than zero would be greater than the number of cases Pennsylvania _knows to exist_, wouldn’t it now, Counselor? Or at least any number more than “a few dozen”, which is the number you came across, er, somewhere unciteable, presumably the same place as your revealingly-confident assertion that they’d be Obama voters. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/30 "2012-08-15T20:21:38Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wait, the 750k statement has a high standard of evidence, but we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? > > Interesting that. How fortunate for you. Who said we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? Who was it? Who? ---
**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 15, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/31 "2012-08-15T20:24:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who said we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? Who was it? Who? Well you took issue with my argument. I assume that you have evidence that there are more illegal votes happening than people who are kept from voting, right? Or perhaps you find it perfectly fine if say 1000 people were kept from voting for each illegal vote prevented. Is that the case? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/32 "2012-08-15T20:27:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who said we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? Who was it? Who? Well, someone said “And ensuring voter confidence in the results of the election is worth “incommoding” voters.”" But you’d have to be pretty innumerate to think that confidence would be affected by a few dozen cheaters. So we’d have to assume wide spread voter fraud if confidence was being affected, would we not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/33 "2012-08-15T20:29:58Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Well, someone said “And ensuring voter confidence in the results of the election is worth “incommoding” voters.”" > > But you’d have to be pretty innumerate to think that confidence would be affected by a few dozen cheaters. So we’d have to assume wide spread voter fraud if confidence was being affected, would we not? No, we would not. Our confidence is also affected by the knowledge that we could see a repeat of Florida in 2000 or Washington State in 2006, where a very small number of illegal voters could swing a result. A few dozen cheaters does affect confidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/34 "2012-08-15T20:32:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well you took issue with my argument. I assume that you have evidence that there are more illegal votes happening than people who are kept from voting, right? > > Or perhaps you find it perfectly fine if say 1000 people were kept from voting for each illegal vote prevented. Is that the case? First, no one has been kept from voting. The petitioners had the opportunity to present witnesses that would be prevented from voting and they couldn’t come up with a single one. Every time you make an assumption, Lobo, your assumption is skewed towards the best possible outcome for your argument. Stop making assumptions. They die when confronted with reality. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/35 "2012-08-15T20:33:18Z")
It appears from here that the judge took **Bricker’s** most favored position: that the issue is about disenfranchising voters, preventing them from voting, rather than the more subtle but equally pernicious motive of discouraging disagreeable voters. Simply because the law does not actually forbid voting, that doesn’t make it all kosher and full of crunchy goodness. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/36 "2012-08-15T20:34:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Every time you make an assumption, Lobo, your assumption is skewed towards the best possible outcome for your argument. Stop making assumptions. They die when confronted with reality. Your impartial adherence to truth above partisan concerns is a beacon to us all. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/37 "2012-08-15T20:35:30Z")
It is a bit tricky, right? Because the person who will be stopped from voting is the person that doesn’t know they need an ID and shows up without one (or the wrong one). And then can’t go back for one because they have to go to work or pick up their kid or take the bus back to the nursing home. If you show up in court ahead of time to claim you’ll be disenfranchised you are, by definition, not someone who will be disenfranchised. It’s a decent catch, that Catch-22. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/38 "2012-08-15T20:37:27Z")
The source of the 750K voters is apparently [this.](http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/voter-id-outreach-letter-causes-confusion-647793/) It’s basically a worst case estimate produced by looking for IDs in the DOT database that are not in the voter ID database. Apparently a missing middle initial is enough to trigger a warning letter. So, the question comes down to “How lenient or stringent are the prefects at the voting stations going to be?” Are there guidelines that have to be followed? Can it be \* guaranteed \* that voters of both parties will be treated equally when they come to vote?" ---
**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 15, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/39 "2012-08-15T20:39:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > First, no one has been kept from voting. The petitioners had the opportunity to present witnesses that would be prevented from voting and they couldn’t come up with a single one. So you’re telling me that the ad they put in the newspaper didn’t find anyone without a license? Shocking. > [@](#): > > Every time you make an assumption, Lobo, your assumption is skewed towards the best possible outcome for your argument. Stop making assumptions. They die when confronted with reality. My assumptions are based on the worst case scenario for democracy. I suppose I could assume that zero people don’t have ID and one billion illegal aliens will be kept from voting. We know that some large amount of people in Penn don’t have IDs. We also know that there are practically zero known cases of in-person voter fraud. My position is that if more people are kept from voting than kept from illegally voting it is a bad law. So why are my assumptions questionable? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/40 "2012-08-15T20:40:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, we would not. > > Our confidence is also affected by the knowledge that we could see a repeat of Florida in 2000 or Washington State in 2006, where a very small number of illegal voters could swing a result. A few dozen cheaters does affect confidence. Ah, but if we had that close an election, I’d kind of want to know how many eligible voters had been turned away because they were lacking valid ID. I know if that happened, though, the Supreme Court would have our back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=3)