# 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:** 26
**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:** [September 19, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/501 "2012-09-19T23:33:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There are no real consequences for you guys for being wrong. You don’t get the scorn you richly deserve, because all your fellow lefties are perfectly understanding of th situation, and all feel you SHOULD have been right. > > Losing a bet would at least rub your noses in your error for a bit, but it’s always at times like these that the announcements about how you’re deeply opposed to gambling come pouring forth in deeply pious tones. I hope the law is shit-canned. Is that clear enough for you? I’m not sure it will be, so I don’t want to “bet” on it. It will still be a shitty law put in place by dishonest, rancid little men who want to enshrine partisan advantage at the cost of the rights of the poor, even if it is upheld. So what exactly do you think you’re _neener-neenering_ here? If the law is or isn’t upheld it’s still shitty. Legal doesn’t mean good or wise. It means legal. If it were legal to have sex with the dead at funerals, I’d still think it were a bad idea. So again, what are you actually shooting for here? You want to be able to gloat if the law is upheld? I imagine you’ll do that anyway. ---
**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:** [September 20, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/502 "2012-09-20T00:35:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There are no real consequences for you guys for being wrong. You don’t get the scorn you richly deserve, because all your fellow lefties are perfectly understanding of th situation, and all feel you SHOULD have been right. > > Losing a bet would at least rub your noses in your error for a bit, but it’s always at times like these that the announcements about how you’re deeply opposed to gambling come pouring forth in deeply pious tones. I said nothing about being opposed to gambling. I said that I don’t know how they’ll rule. I know how they should rule, but should and will are two different things. I’m not going to bet on a coin flip. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/503 "2012-09-20T13:41:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I hope the law is shit-canned. > > Is that clear enough for you? I’m not sure it will be, so I don’t want to “bet” on it. It will still be a shitty law put in place by dishonest, rancid little men who want to enshrine partisan advantage at the cost of the rights of the poor, even if it is upheld. > > So what exactly do you think you’re _neener-neenering_ here? > > If the law is or isn’t upheld it’s still shitty. Legal doesn’t mean good or wise. It means legal. If it were legal to have sex with the dead at funerals, I’d still think it were a bad idea. > > So again, what are you actually shooting for here? You want to be able to gloat if the law is upheld? I imagine you’ll do that anyway. I want some consequence for the people who seem to feel this was a bitch-slap from the Penn Supremes to the trial court. Yes, Lobohan, I get that you personally believe this is a shitty law. But there is only a small minority of people that agree with you. Most people favor the law. And you’re wrong about it being bad – that’s not an objective judgement. For you, subjectively, weighing the inconvenience of people against the value the law brings produces a result that disfavors the law. But that’s not the case for everyone else, and you cannot validly trumpet your personal opinions as though they were facts handed down at Sinai. ---
**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:** [September 20, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/504 "2012-09-20T14:19:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And you’re wrong about it being bad – that’s not an **objective** judgement. > > the **value** the law brings Bolding mine. Is there an objective value to this law? AFAIK, the folks defending it in court have admitted that they do not know of a single actual fraudulent vote that would have been prevented by this law. Has there been an objective, peer-reviewed study of PA voter confidence that identified this as a key issue, preventing voters from going to the polls? The inconvenience that people will have to go through to vote is 100% real. The new steps they have to go through are written in black and white. Your value, OTOH, is based on nothing. No studies, no data, there is nothing objective backing up the idea that this law has value. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/505 "2012-09-20T15:07:49Z")
Not strictly true. The Counselor brought forth (in the other thread?) the wave of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, and its ghastly implications. One woman, who committed voter fraud four times! Four! Consider the facts! From the time of her first crime, until her one-woman crime wave was finally halted, the incidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania increased 400%! _400%!_ Why, at that rate of exponential increase, it would be only a matter of a few elections before voter fraud overwhelms the legitimate votes cast! And this, apparently, without the cooperation and leadership of fiendish CASA volunteers. If a single person can create such an avalanche of voter fraud without such backing, the mind boggles to consider what might happen if such skulduggery were unleashed! 4,000%? 40,000%? Desperate times call for desperate measures by desperate men. Some day, we will look back with gratitude and approval to men like our own **Bricker** , who can look past the sordid and tawdry motivations of a few Republicans and see the bigger picture, the “neutral justifications” so crucial to our nation’s fate! If the Democrats truly loved America, they would bend over, lube up, and take one for their country! And heartily echo the words of that great American, “Chip” Diller: “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/506 "2012-09-20T16:27:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My prediction is that the lower court will hold a hearing, the state will say that IDs are readily available to any who wish them, and the judge will again uphold the law. > > I am willing to bet that the judge again upholds the law. This is essentially what happened last time and just got rejected by the PA Supreme court. The State is going to have to do a bit more than just say that IDs will be available, they’re going to have to demonstrate how they’re getting IDs to more than 750,000 people, some of whom live several hours away from the nearest PennDOT branch and due to age or disability have difficulty traveling. Furthermore they’re going to have to explain in detail how PennDOT is going to reconcile two different directives to both make IDs harder to obtain (to prevent illegal aliens and terrorists from getting them) and make them easier to obtain (to ensure that all PA residents can get one with minimal documentation). As you pointed out neither of those things is impossible, but it certainly didn’t happen last time. At least not to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court who feels that assurances from the State simply don’t cut it. My guess is that if Simpson upholds the law a second time it will be because you can vote absentee without showing any ID and he feels that those 759,000 voters should all just do that if they can’t make it to a PennDOT branch or come up with the required documentation to obtain an ID. He’s made similar comments before in regard to Plaintiff Bea Bookler’s situation. Of course if he rules that way he’s just highlighting the pointlessness of the whole mess and how it does nothing to prevent voter fraud. ---
**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:** [September 20, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/507 "2012-09-20T16:52:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I want some consequence for the people who seem to feel this was a bitch-slap from the Penn Supremes to the trial court. Why? Again, this law will be as morally right or wrong no matter what the courts decide. People, perhaps partisan people, are making this decision. I’m confident this is a profoundly stupid law, not that the lower court will do the correct thing. > [@](#): > > Yes, Lobohan, I get that you personally believe this is a shitty law. But there is only a small minority of people that agree with you. Most people favor the law. Most people thought blacks shouldn’t marry whites… not so long ago. Most people can be misinformed by the outright liars on the right, or by simply not having all the information. > [@](#): > > And you’re wrong about it being bad – that’s not an objective judgement. For you, subjectively, weighing the inconvenience of people against the value the law brings produces a result that disfavors the law. But that’s not the case for everyone else, and you cannot validly trumpet your personal opinions as though they were facts handed down at Sinai. It is a fact that some number of people will not be able to vote because of this law. That number is orders of magnitude higher than the number of fraudulent in-person votes cast in this country over the last ten years. It’s a stupid law. Period. It doesn’t do what it proclaims. And it makes the problem it seeks to fight _worse_. That’s a fact dude, not my opinion. This is you championing amputation at the shoulder to cure hangnails. ---
**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:** [September 20, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/508 "2012-09-20T20:39:41Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > My guess is that if Simpson upholds the law a second time it will be because you can vote absentee without showing any ID and he feels that those 759,000 voters should all just do that if they can’t make it to a PennDOT branch or come up with the required documentation to obtain an ID. He’s made similar comments before in regard to Plaintiff Bea Bookler’s situation. I’m a PA resident and I just helped my mother apply for an absentee ballot. You can’t legally vote absentee in PA for just any old reason at all. You have to either have some physical infirmity that makes it difficult for you to go to the polls (and have a doctor who’ll back that up) or you have to be away from your precinct on election day. I don’t know how much effort they put into checking whether or not someone is really out of the area, so people might get away with lying about being on vacation or whatever, but I don’t think “oh they can all just lie and vote absentee” is much of a legal argument. On Edit: Here’s a cite for the absentee rules: [Voting & Election Information | Voting & Election Information | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania](http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174088&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=7&mode=2) ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/509 "2012-10-02T14:47:47Z")
> **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F10%2F02%2Fpennsylvania-voter-id-ruling_n_1919187.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. It was pretty clear to everyone except \*\*Bricker \*\*that it would be halted for this election, but as a Pennsylvanian I’m extremely relieved for it to be official. I guess they’re still allowed to ask for ID but you can refuse and cast a real vote anyway? Seems strange. ---
**Author:** ![dennis40056](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@dennis40056](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dennis40056)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/510 "2012-10-02T17:09:21Z")
The courts seem to be in favor of “vote early; vote often”. At least require voters to place their thumbprints on a ballot document - similar to when you cash a check at the bank - then at least we can after-the-fact see how many people voted more than once. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/511 "2012-10-02T17:57:21Z")
> [@dennis40056](#): > > The courts seem to be in favor of “vote early; vote often”. At least require voters to place their thumbprints on a ballot document - similar to when you cash a check at the bank - then at least we can after-the-fact see how many people voted more than once. Do you guys breed back there in the woodwork you all come crawling out of? I mean, are we getting different generations here? ---
**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:** [October 2, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/512 "2012-10-02T18:05:21Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Do you guys breed back there in the woodwork you all come crawling out of? You have to admit, if you’re worried about multiple voting, it would be far easier to check 100 million fingerprints post-election than come up with some [high cost, extremely difficult to implement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink) way to prevent multiple voting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/513 "2012-10-02T18:11:32Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/pennsylvania-voter-id-ruling_n_1919187.html) > > It was pretty clear to everyone except \*\*Bricker \*\*that it would be halted for this election, but as a Pennsylvanian I’m extremely relieved for it to be official. > > I guess they’re still allowed to ask for ID but you can refuse and cast a real vote anyway? Seems strange. No. You cast a provisional ballot, but don’t have to show up in the time frame to validate the provisional ballot. I’m OK with this. An illegal voter would be reluctant to stand out and make himself memorable by casting a provisional ballot. It’s not perfect, but it’s workable. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/514 "2012-10-02T18:14:07Z")
If you can actually \*find \*one, maybe you can ask him about his motivations instead of speculating. Why are you maintaining this pretense when even the PA GOP isn’t? ---
**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:** [October 2, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/515 "2012-10-02T18:15:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. You cast a provisional ballot, but don’t have to show up in the time frame to validate the provisional ballot. > > I’m OK with this. An illegal voter would be reluctant to stand out and make himself memorable by casting a provisional ballot. It’s not perfect, but it’s workable. An interesting attempt to pretend you’ve won. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/516 "2012-10-02T18:48:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. You cast a provisional ballot, but don’t have to show up in the time frame to validate the provisional ballot. [Meanwhile, in the reality-based universe](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-enforcement-halted-by-judge/2012/10/02/bf240ffc-0c9d-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html): > [@](#): > > …Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said elections officials could still ask voters for a photo ID, but could not turn away otherwise qualified voters who had not been able to obtain one… In such cases, Simpson wrote, “an otherwise qualified elector who does not provide proof of identification may cast a ballot that shall be counted without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot.” > Simpson’s decision that those voters do not have to cast a provisional ballot “is what makes this so significant and why we think it’s a real victory,” said Penda Hair of Advancement Project, one of the groups that challenged the new law… ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/517 "2012-10-02T19:17:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. You cast a provisional ballot, but don’t have to show up in the time frame to validate the provisional ballot. > > I’m OK with this. An illegal voter would be reluctant to stand out and make himself memorable by casting a provisional ballot. It’s not perfect, but it’s workable. What did he mean when he wrote: > [@](#): > > Similarly, I reject the Respondents’ post-hearing argument that a > possible remedy is to enjoin only operation of the disenfranchisement language > added by Act 18 to Section 1210(a.4)(5)(ii) of the Election Code, discussed above. > Thus, Respondents suggest that a qualified elector be asked to produce proof of > identification, but be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. This argument fails to > acknowledge the General Assembly’s express intent that during the transition into > full implementation of Act 18, an otherwise qualified elector need not cast a > provisional ballot ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/518 "2012-10-02T19:19:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > An interesting attempt to pretend you’ve won. No, this isn’t the outcome I wanted. I didn’t win. But I think this fight will be easier in 2014 when the argument that the ID requirement is being rushed into effect is no longer available to opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/519 "2012-10-02T19:21:10Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > What did he mean when he wrote: He meant I was wrong. I hadn’t read the decision; I was reacting to posts describing the outcome in the Pit thread. It looks like the voter may be asked for ID but, even if he doesn’t have it, he will be permitted to cast an ordinary ballot. That isn’t a good outcome. It’s not horrendous – even asking for ID is a good first step, since it makes it more memorable for someone to not have ID and still vote and will hopefully dissuade at least some illegal voters. But it’s not the outcome I thought we had, nor is it (obviously) the one I wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/520 "2012-10-02T19:27:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not horrendous – even asking for ID is a good first step, since it makes it more memorable for someone to not have ID and still vote and will hopefully dissuade at least some illegal voters. But it’s not the outcome I thought we had, nor is it (obviously) the one I wanted. “Hopefully dissuade some illegal voters”? Given the vanishing rarity of illegal voters who cast their illegal ballots by showing up at the polling station impersonating someone else, how many do you expect to be dissuaded? It’s really unlikely there would be a single illegal vote cast in this manner in Pennsylvania this year; there aren’t any such voters to dissuade, most likely. No, people who want to vote illegally will do the safe thing and cast an absentee ballot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=27)