# 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:** 5
**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, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/81 "2012-08-16T03:56:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. Not true. I do care. I simply have a moral system that does not regard these laws as immoral, a view shared by the majority of voters. Are the 70 percent of voters who support these laws also amoral? How do you get to simply define your side as the moral one? And how do you seek to insulate your attack as some factual matter? ---
**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, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/82 "2012-08-16T03:59:18Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. Or, in the alternative, the trial judge saw a lying witness. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/83 "2012-08-16T05:29:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > …So why are my assumptions questionable? Because they are assumptions. If they’re trying to “prove” that there are disenfranchised voters because of a new law then they should be able to produce actual disenfranchised voters for the court. ---
**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, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/84 "2012-08-16T05:42:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not true. I do care. I simply have a moral system that does not regard these laws as immoral, a view shared by the majority of voters. Are the 70 percent of voters who support these laws also amoral? Why yes, yes they are. In the same way that the majority of slave owners were amoral back in the day, and the majority who thought whites shouldn’t marry blacks were amoral back in the day. My only solace is that history will look back on you and yours with contempt for shitting on democracy, and me and mine with pride for having stood up for it. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/85 "2012-08-16T05:54:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Motives? Why, the motive is as pure as the driven snow, it all about voter integrity and confidence! And if, to this worthy end, **some several thousand Democrat voters disappear** , that is an unfortunate result, but one the Republicans stand ready to accept, as stern duty demands. Are you claiming that several thousand Democrat voters have actually disappeared (prevented from voting)? What are their names? Where do they live? Why didn’t they appear in court? Why can’t they be found? Do they actually exist? ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/86 "2012-08-16T06:22:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with the 750,000 figure. And learning of new laws and obeying them is every citizen’s responsibility. And ensuring voter confidence in the results of the election is worth “incommoding” voters. Where is the evidence that Pennsylvania voters have any lack of confidence in the outcome of their elections? Additionally, where is the evidence that their confidence level will be increased because of the passage of this law? ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/87 "2012-08-16T06:33:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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) How prescient of the Pennsylvania lawmakers to anticipate this arrest by passing a law that would not prevent her from voting by absentee ballot and even though they were unaware of her alleged violations. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/88 "2012-08-16T07:16:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Voter ID may in fact be acceptable to Democrats in Pennsylvania as well. It is the law in question that is unacceptable. In Rhode Island the law requiring a picture ID does not go into effect until 2014, giving ample time for interested parties to prepare a challenge to its implementation and more importantly to obviate the likelihood that the law will be seen to be partisan. Right now a birth certificate or social security card is ok. Pennsylvania starts in 2012. Also and most importantly in Rhode Island a provisional ballot will be permitted in which signatures will be compared between the declaration made by the voter and the voter registration, and where the signatures match the vote will be counted. No such allowance is made in Pennsylvania. The most important reason though is that it is much more difficult to get elected in Rhode Island as a Republican, so Democrat encompasses a very broad spectrum of political thought. Imputing passage of the law in Rhode Island as an endorsement of the disenfranchisement that will be taking place in Pennsylvania is not accurate. The Delaware law does not in any way resemble the law in Pennsylvania. Acceptable forms of ID are any government document with the voter’s name and address, a picture ID, a utility bill or a paycheck. If a voter has none of the stated forms he can sign an affidavit stating that s/he is the person listed on the election district record. I think the average Pennsylvania Democrat can live with these requirements also. Your implication that Democrats endorse the draconian measures taken in Pennsylvania is flat out wrong and cannot be proven. ---
**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 16, 2012, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/89 "2012-08-16T09:40:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [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) > Wow. Agreed, this is far worse than I ever imagined. Of course, since it’s impossible to have a driver’s licence that doesn’t reflect your current address (I think they self destruct when you move these days) the Voter ID law will prevent these heinous criminal ventures. Thankfully, nobody is doing anything to mess with absentee ballots. Those little bastards are totally secure\*. It’s not like someone could gather up dozens or hundreds of fraudulent ballots and mail them. Nope, totally impossible, nothing to worry about at all. In fact, all the elderly folks with ID issues should just vote absentee. That way, they\*\* will be able to vote easily, and without the slightest difficulty. \*By “secure”, I mean “more often used by Republican voters” \*\* By “they”, I mean “their abusive son-in-law” since he will simply take the ballot from their desk and vote the way he wants. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/90 "2012-08-16T11:26:49Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Oh, come on! How many people in this country do not have a picture ID? If you don’t have a driver’s license you get a state issued ID card. You do not need to even be in the country legally to get an ID card. > > The elderly? How did you make it to 80 or 90 years old and not have valid ID? > > All the arguments about the difficulty imposed on some voters who might have to travel and pay to get a valid ID all fall away if your state just moves to the simple, easy, cheap, vote-by-mail system, where no one has to leave their home, show ID, take time off work, etc. > > All of these voter fraud, ID, and related issues are just silly if you move to vote by mail. Before my state, Oregon, went to vote by mail, my county clerk encouraged people to register as absentee voters and get their ballot in the mail. This simple step saved the county a shit load of money. I was VBM for years before the entire state adopted it. Now it is the only way to cast an Oregon vote. > > The whole showing up at the local school/polling place is a pratice of community voting experience whose time has passed. Maintaining polling places and voting hours eliminates more working class voters than voter ID ever will. And it costs a lot of money. > > Too busy on voting day, can’t find someone to watch the kids, can’t leave work during voting hours, work nights or odd shifts, forgot which day to vote, don’t have transportation to get there, ill and can’t make it, too far to travel and too long to stand in line? Just forget it, I’m not voting in this election. > > The is the entrenched method of subtle voter suppression that goes on all over the country, and most people seem just fine with it. > > How about we mail you the ballot and give you 2 or 3 weeks to study the issues and make an informed decision? Oh, hell no, we can’t have that shit! You make several good points, but I must disagree with your questioning how can the elderly not have picture IDs. Many of them have stopped driving. Many of them never did. A great many people in large metropolitan areas never get drivers licenses. Further, the PA law requires that the ID not be expired. You’re a senior who just stopped driving and your license expired? Sucks to be you, no ballot! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/91 "2012-08-16T11:30:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ensuring voter confidence Just to reiterate the point made by Budget Player Cadet above: > [@Study Sinaptics Linked in the Pit Thread](#): > > Although a sizable share of the population believes that vote fraud commonly or occasionally occurs, there is little or no relationship between beliefs about the frequency of fraud and electoral participation (reported, validated, or intended). Nor does it appear to be the case that universal voter identification requirements will raise levels of trust in the electoral process. Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=655025)’s a link to the pit thread. ---
**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 16, 2012, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/92 "2012-08-16T11:52:05Z")
This was posted on FB. I’m throwing it out for discussion. > [@](#): > > Numerous sources are reporting that 186,830 registered voters in Philadelphia do not have the needed photo ID. Okay, now they can get a valid ID without having to pay for a birth certificate. If they don’t want to go to the trouble of getting the proper paperwork together and visiting a photo center, well hey, they’ve only themselves to blame, right? There’s now no reason every single one of them can’t get the needed ID in time for the election. (I hope you’re detecting my sarcasm.) > > PA’s website shows that there are 5 photo license centers in Philadelphia. The centers vary in the days and hours when they are open for photos but assuming that each is open 48 hours a week (which is actually an overestimate) then the 5 of them combined are able to provide photo IDs for 240 hours a week. > > It’s being reported that these new IDs will be available starting the last week of August. So starting the last week of August and counting up to and including November 6 (election day) these people will have a period of 10 weeks and 2 days during which they can obtain an ID in time for the election. Multiplying that by the number of hours available a week, we get 2,480 hours. So, if every one of those 186,830 voters try to visit a Philly photo ID center in that time period, the centers will have to issue 75 IDs an hour, meaning that each individual center will have to issue 15 an hour or one every 4 minutes. This doesn’t include the normal traffic of people renewing their driver’s licenses. This analysis is only for Philly but I’d think that this problem exists statewide. I live in PA. Over the years I’ve been to our local PennDOT photo center (not in Philly) a number of times to renew my drivers license. It’s always been packed with other people renewing their licenses (I’ve had to sit and wait an hour or more) and I understand that’s it’s even worse more recently due to cutbacks. Add to this the extra traffic from people seeking Voter ID and you have a big problem. So the assertion that they can’t handle the extra traffic from all the people who will need voter ID seems valid to me. Also, it strikes me that people who hold 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet may not be able to spend half a day, even a Saturday, waiting in a Photo center, so this could disproportionately affect populations that are more likely to vote for Democrats. Thoughts? ---
**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, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/93 "2012-08-16T12:36:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or, in the alternative, the trial judge saw a lying witness. Yes of course. But that’s not especially relevant to my point. Because of the unreliability of lie-detecting, ordinarily a judge does not make credibility findings unless a determinative fact requires such a finding. Here, not all of the comments on credibility were necessary in that way. This isn’t a heinous indictment. Judges of all kinds do this when they feel strongly about the case and want to avoid reversal. But in a case where one should be very concerned about the effect of one’s own bias, it is a little bit of dirty pool. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/94 "2012-08-16T12:51:14Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > No they aren’t; they’re just a game to rig the system by a party too afraid to play by the rules. Why is voting unique that it’s the only thing you wouldn’t want to require ID for? Could it be that those who resist an ID requirement are trying to game the system? > [@](#): > > 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? There was no integrity to tighten up that ID for in-person voting would resolve. 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. Notarization is actually a burden, and a poll tax. And dead people find a way to vote: [http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php](http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php) And tax fraud is rare: Only 2200 convictions per year. [http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=107484,00.html](http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=107484,00.html) And that’s with them looking very hard. In Minnesota alone, over 100 people were convicted of vote fraud in the aftermath of the 2008 election. And a right-wing group had to browbeat the authorities into investigating, because they didn’t want to, but according to state law, had to look into all tips. Other states just don’t bother. But if we assume other states would have similar conviction rates if they actually tried to root this stuff out, we’re looking at 4-6 thousand convictions per year, easily more than we get for tax fraud. So let’s make a deal, no ID requirement in exchange for ending IRS audits. Why should citizens be burdened with having to prove their income and assets to do their patriotic duty? Why should we spend so much effort going after a non-existent problem? I’m not just being flippant here. I do think liberals have a good point on this ID thing. But since they don’t believe we should lift ID requirements for anything else, it does smack of politics instead of a genuine concern for people’s welfare. If liberals would be in favor of lifting ID requirements for other things, since they do say it is an onerous burden, then their concerns would seem more sincere. ---
**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, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/95 "2012-08-16T13:14:33Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Why yes, yes they are. In the same way that the majority of slave owners were amoral back in the day, and the majority who thought whites shouldn’t marry blacks were amoral back in the day. My only solace is that history will look back on you and yours with contempt for shitting on democracy, and me and mine with pride for having stood up for it. Well, I simply don’t agree, and don’t appreciate being called amoral or characterized as shitting on democracy in a thread in the Elections Forum. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/96 "2012-08-16T13:16:45Z")
**adaher** : What other ID requirements do you suggest can be lifted? Driver’s licenses, passports, what? What are you suggesting we should support in the name of ideological consistency? It “smacks of politics”, you say? Doesn’t it smack of concern for strengthening democracy by expanding participation in it, as well? And doesn’t the Republican concern with limiting the franchise smack of undermining democracy, not to mention restoring Jim Crow? You claim that voter ID laws are “common sense”. Perhaps you could be the first to tell us, out here in the reality-based community, (A) the significant real extent of the alleged problem, and (B) how these laws would affect it in any way. ---
**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, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/97 "2012-08-16T13:17:06Z")
> [@denquixote](#): > > How prescient of the Pennsylvania lawmakers to anticipate this arrest by passing a law that would not prevent her from voting by absentee ballot and even though they were unaware of her alleged violations. No sugar in her porridge, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/98 "2012-08-16T13:21:19Z")
For once in my life I get to say that I think my state (MO) has the exact right balance here. To vote you either need: photo ID, voter registration card (mailed to the address you are registered at the week before the election), or a piece of mail sent by the government, a bank, or a utility with your name and address on it. [http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/](http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/) This eliminates any attempts at election-changing in-person fraud while discouraging almost nobody. I think Democrats would do better to push for these types of statutes and then get the GOP to explain why they are insufficient to address the (perceived) problem. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/99 "2012-08-16T13:27:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **adaher** : What other ID requirements do you suggest can be lifted? Driver’s licenses, passports, what? What are you suggesting we should support in the name of ideological consistency? I wouldn’t refer to it as ideological consistency. Once we’ve established that ID requirements are onerous, then that has implications, does it not? That’s not ideological consistency, it’s basic logic. > [@](#): > > You claim that voter ID laws are “common sense”. Perhaps you could be the first to tell us, out here in the reality-based community, (A) the significant real extent of the alleged problem, and (B) how these laws would affect it in any way. They are common sense because Americans are used to having to whip out ID to do virtually anything. If that wasn’t the case, then Americans would be more likely to not regard ID laws as common sense. As for where I think ID requirements should be lifted, that’s easy. Traveling by plane or train, renting a motel room, getting a job. Of course, if the companies involved want to require ID themselves, they can, but if they don’t care I don’t see where the compelling government interest is. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/100 "2012-08-16T13:29:25Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > For once in my life I get to say that I think my state (MO) has the exact right balance here. To vote you either need: photo ID, voter registration card (mailed to the address you are registered at the week before the election), or a piece of mail sent by the government, a bank, or a utility with your name and address on it. > > [Voter ID](http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/) > > This eliminates any attempts at election-changing in-person fraud while discouraging almost nobody. I think Democrats would do better to push for these types of statutes and then get the GOP to explain why they are insufficient to address the (perceived) problem. The GOP would love strict voter ID laws, but courts strike those down. So it seems to me the GOP has already accepted looser standards, as long as SOMETHING is required other than just saying you are someone on the list. An airline wouldn’t accept that as valid, why should precinct workers? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=6)