# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/61 "2012-08-16T01:20:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Slightly harder? Yes, it’s acceptable to add a tiny additional burden to combat a very real issue with voter confidence. A fake, ginned up issue invented out of whole cloth by a party that figured it needed to cheat to win. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/62 "2012-08-16T01:28:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Voter ID laws are just common sense. No they aren’t; they’re just a game to rig the system by a party too afraid to play by the rules. I propose we make it a law that all vote-by-mail ballots must be notarized. I’m sure you’re all for that, right? > [@adaher](#): > > And the bipartisan Baker-Carter commission recommended voter ID, along with a lot of other suggestions, to tighten up the integrity of the elections process. > > [http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/](http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/) > > [http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER\_section2.pdf](http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER_section2.pdf) There was no integrity to tighten up that ID for in-person voting would resolve. > [@adaher](#): > > And for those who think the problem is too small, why not apply that same logic to tax enforcement? The number of tax fraud convictions is pretty darn small. Since we are spending a lot of money to burdening a lot of people to fight a very small problem, then shouldn’t we stop audits? You’re kidding, right? The number of tax fraud convictions is large. No state that’s had their voter ID laws heard in court has been able to document one teeny shred of evidence of anyone impersonating someone else at the polls. None. And I bet you can’t even show 10 cases where ID _might_ have prevented someone voting illegally _ **in TEN years** _, out of _ **hundreds of MILLIONS of votes cast** _. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/63 "2012-08-16T01:31:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Shayna** , this isn’t appropriate for this forum. Okay, how about, “Quit making shit up”? Or, “That’s just made up bullshit”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/64 "2012-08-16T01:38:33Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > A fake, ginned up issue invented out of whole cloth by a party that figured it needed to cheat to win. That’s your opinion. I, and a majority of your fellow citizens, disagree. Also in disagreement: the majority of each state legislature that passed the laws, and the majority of courts to consider the issue. To include the Supreme Court. Kinda lonely on your side. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/65 "2012-08-16T01:39:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Also, how does making it harder (or in some cases impossible) for millions of Americans to vote, while keeping perhaps tens of people from falsely voting increasing the integrity of the system? … > > Unless you think severing someone’s arm is a great solution to a hangnail. There isn’t even a hangnail to clip off. There is no evidence to support the need for voter ID at the polls. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There wouldn’t even be ten people falsifying someone’s identity at the polls, let alone ten_s_. It. Doesn’t. Happen. But I’ll tell you what does happen … a lot … [absentee ballot fraud](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/14/688441/republican-candidate-under-investigation-for-absentee-ballot-fraud/). I want to hear the voter ID supporters also support notarizing all absentee ballots to combat this very real problem. I’m extremely verklempt over it. My confidence in the system is shattered. Shattered, I tell you! And if Democrats take up the mantle on this fight for justice and integrity in the election process, I want our Republican friends rallying behind us with equal force. So, show some integrity, Republicans, and demand confidence in every aspect of our voting process. Call your congressperson RIGHT NOW and leave a message that you want notarized absentee ballots to allay your fears of illegal voting. Go on. I dare ya. [Here’s where you can find who they are and how to reach them](http://www.contactingthecongress.org). ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/66 "2012-08-16T01:46:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s your opinion. I, and a majority of your fellow citizens, disagree. Also in disagreement: the majority of each state legislature that passed the laws, and the majority of courts to consider the issue. To include the Supreme Court. > > Kinda lonely on your side. 1. You can hardly gloat that a majority of Republican state legislators and Republican judges and a right-wing Supreme Court are in cahoots to cheat at elections. HA HA HA. That’s freaking hilarious! And 2. Of COURSE a majority of people have been scared by the screeching right wing scare tactics: Your side has been honing their skills at this game for decades and they’ve gotten it Down. Pat, so that ain’t anything to brag about either. Next I guess you’re gonna tell me that because a majority of people approved of slavery that those who opposed it should’ve been mocked as feeling lonely, too, right? It’d be hilarious watching you play the tyranny of the majority game if it didn’t have such potentially devastating real-world consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/67 "2012-08-16T02:06:58Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > 1. You can hardly gloat that a majority of Republican state legislators and Republican judges and a right-wing Supreme Court are in cahoots to cheat at elections. HA HA HA. That’s freaking hilarious! And 2. Of COURSE a majority of people have been scared by the screeching right wing scare tactics: Your side has been honing their skills at this game for decades and they’ve gotten it Down. Pat, so that ain’t anything to brag about either. > > Next I guess you’re gonna tell me that because a majority of people approved of slavery that those who opposed it should’ve been mocked as feeling lonely, too, right? > > It’d be hilarious watching you play the tyranny of the majority game if it didn’t have such potentially devastating real-world consequences. Delaware has voter ID, passed by a majority Democratic legislature. So does Rhode Island, again by Democrats. It’s not just Republicans. It’s people who understand that Voter ID is a reasonable and common sense measure. What I think is hilarious is the baffled fury the left reacts with when their usual nonsense isn’t swallowed whole hog by the public. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/68 "2012-08-16T02:23:11Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Okay, how about, “Quit making shit up”? Or, “That’s just made up bullshit”? “That’s just made up bullshit” isn’t exactly soaring rhetoric but it would be OK as long as you are not saying the other poster made something up. So “quit making shit up” is not even close. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/69 "2012-08-16T02:33:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …It won’t hurt Obama much… a few dozen votes lost from illegal aliens and would-be duplicate voters. Maybe so, but sure would like some kind of cite for this estimation. I mean, you didn’t just pull these numbers right out of…thin air? Or did you? Because, as you no doubt are aware, they stipulated that they had, in fact, a full total of, approximately, zero. As in none, nada damn one. How is it that you have such facts right at your fingertips which eluded them? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/70 "2012-08-16T02:44:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Untrue. > > If it were true, the petitioners could have produced a witness or two to say so. They looked desperately for them and couldn’t find one… Hold on there, hoss. Question arises: were they required to show someone who would be prevented from voting, or simply to provide people who would find it more difficult? A legislative effort to _discourage_ voting by an undesirable element is better than one to flat out _disenfrachise_, in the same way that cholera is preferable to smallpox. Because the question of whether or not someone is flat out prevented from voting is a considerably more narrow question, yes? Or are we trying to get the public to swallow some nonsense about equality of civil rights? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/71 "2012-08-16T02:57:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15170550&postcount=272](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15170550&postcount=272) IIRC, you were following that thread, no? _Voter confidence is a bullshit argument and you know it_. Stop lying. Also, I think it’s fair to point this out to everyone else involved: Bricker does not care whether or not the law in question is good. He cares whether or not it is legal and benefits his side. He is utterly amoral in that regards, and as such, holding this debate with him is like trying to debate Ken Ham on advanced evolutionary biology – you’re just wasting your time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/72 "2012-08-16T02:59:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Maybe so, but sure would like some kind of cite for this estimation. I mean, you didn’t just pull these numbers right out of…thin air? Or did you? Because, as you no doubt are aware, they stipulated that they had, in fact, a full total of, approximately, zero. As in none, nada damn one. > > How is it that you have such facts right at your fingertips which eluded them? Their stipulation is for the trial. It says that even if there’s not a single case, the law is valid. But of course there are actual examples of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Here’s [one.](http://m.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120611/NEWS/120619972/-1/NEWS01&template=wapart) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/73 "2012-08-16T03:04:10Z")
[http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120611/NEWS/120619972/-1/NEWS01](http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120611/NEWS/120619972/-1/NEWS01) > [@](#): > > …The DA alleged that Pugh registered to vote in Middle Smithfield Township and voted there four times when she was actually living in Stroud Township… Wow. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/74 "2012-08-16T03:08:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Stop lying. Accusations of lying are prohibited in Great Debates. I don’t recall whether they have been ruled illegal in Elections, but they certainly do nothing to promote a good discussion. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Also, I think it’s fair to point this out to everyone else involved: Bricker does not care whether or not the law in question is good. He cares whether or not it is legal and benefits his side. He is utterly amoral in that regards, . . . You have already received one Warning, this evening, for personal attacks, so I am going to hold off issuing another on the grounds that you might not have seen it, yet, and have not figured out the rules. However, this sort of personal abuse is not appropriate and if you continue in this fashion, you are going to have your posting privileges reviewed. [/Moderating] ---
**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 16, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/75 "2012-08-16T03:14:11Z")
Unfortunately, this particular form of disenfranchisement is not especially amenable to judicial solution. As an election challenge, it essentially has to be a facial challenge (as no judge is going to overturn an election based on the few voters who eventually prove disenfranchisement). And a facial challenge requires a showing that the law will prevent specific individuals from voting. This presents two problems in a court case that have nothing to do with the overall merits, both of which were heavily exploited by this judge (who also rested his findings as much on credibility as possible, a sure sign of a trial judge looking to insulate his decision from appeal). First, you can always tell the complaining voter that she can just cast a provisional ballot, and if its actually denied, then she can plead her case in the clear light of actual facts. Because, gee whiz, this is about the individual plaintiff’s vote being counted, not GOP politics, right? And second, you can transform what is fundamentally a question of whether it makes sense to make it marginally harder for mostly Democratic voters to vote in order to chase after rare cases of fraud into a question of whether each individual voter is still able to vote. It’s a bit like having an economist tell you that a price increase of a single penny alters demand, and responding by insisting that the economist produce that person who will buy the product at $1.00 but not $1.01. And when the economist produces people who generally complain about the price increase, you observe that none of them would absolutely swear off buying the product because of the price increase, concluding that a one cent increase has no effect on demand. Fortunately, the political nature of Pennsylvania’s elected judiciary cuts both ways, and this will see appeal before at least some Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/76 "2012-08-16T03:15:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hold on there, hoss. Question arises: were they required to show someone who would be prevented from voting, or simply to provide people who would find it more difficult? A legislative effort to _discourage_ voting by an undesirable element is better than one to flat out _disenfrachise_, in the same way that cholera is preferable to smallpox. > > Because the question of whether or not someone is flat out prevented from voting is a considerably more narrow question, yes? Or are we trying to get the public to swallow some nonsense about equality of civil rights? Why ask me this? Here’s a guy who says we know that 750,000 people will be kept from voting: > [@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… Ask him. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/77 "2012-08-16T03:21:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You have already received one Warning, this evening, for personal attacks, so I am going to hold off issuing another on the grounds that you might not have seen it, yet, and have not figured out the rules. However, this sort of personal abuse is not appropriate and if you continue in this fashion, you are going to have your posting privileges reviewed. > > [/Moderating] It’s not an attack. Bricker _does not care_ whether the laws make the electoral system more secure, increase voter confidence, _whatever_. He doesn’t give a damn. He has made it readily clear in multiple discussions that all that he cares about is a) does this law help my side and b) is this law constitutional. At that point, it’s _entirely_ fair to throw out a disclaimer that debating him on the issue is a gigantic waste of time, and that he’s shown quite repeatedly that he is unwilling to be honest, and that in regards to _this particular issue_, he is amoral, lacking morals. Or am I out of line to say this? I really don’t think anything I have said here is inaccurate. If you look into his posts in the voter ID thread in the pit, you will see what I’m talking about very clearly. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/78 "2012-08-16T03:31:35Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > … this judge (who also rested his findings as much on credibility as possible, a sure sign of a trial judge looking to insulate his decision from appeal). … Oh, dear. You’re one of them, aren’t you? If you could dumb that down a bit, I’m actually interested in what that means. Aim maybe half a notch over John Grisham, be about right… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/79 "2012-08-16T03:34:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why ask me this? Here’s a guy who says we know that 750,000 people will be kept from voting: > > Ask him. Did you mix up quote and post? Because the only thing your answer has in common with my post is English. ---
**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 16, 2012, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/80 "2012-08-16T03:41:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, dear. You’re one of them, aren’t you? > > If you could dumb that down a bit, I’m actually interested in what that means. Aim maybe half a notch over John Grisham, be about right… An appeals court can overturn a lot that a trial court does. Applying the law incorrectly? No problem, and appeals court can fix that right up. Judging the facts wrong? Well, you need to be clearly wrong, but still no problem. Credibility, however, is sort of a special beast. An appeals court doesn’t get to look the witness in the eye and judge his soul like Dubya and Putin, or like a trial judge and a witness. So generally a finding that a witness was not credible is not ever going to be overturned. In any given case, the result can be massaged to turn more or less on credibility. The more it is massaged to turn on credibility, especially on issues that ordinary findings of fact or conclusions of law would have been sufficient, the more it looks like a trial court judge is trying to avoid reversal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=5)