# 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:** 6
**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, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/101 "2012-08-16T13:35:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 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? What are you talking about? The Supreme Court upheld the Indiana law which is stricter than in MO. My point is that it doesn’t have to be photo ID. Any physical item you have to bring with your name on it is more than sufficient to stop any would-be impersonator. Nobody is going to rummage through hundreds of trash cans to pretend to be somebody they’re not on election day. Democrats should push for these more liberal (in both senses) laws. Not that the GOP would go for them even though they address the problem the GOP claims to have with in-person voting. Compromise, it seems, is dead. ---
**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, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/102 "2012-08-16T13:38:45Z")
Stricter than the Missouri law, but not as strict as the one that got struck down I believe in Georgia. I agree, a loose standard is fine and would satisfy 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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/103 "2012-08-16T13:57:29Z")
> [@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. This is not the place to have this argument, and it goes without saying that you’re not allowed to repeat the insults you were just told to stop posting. This is a formal warning to stop. If you have more complaints, start a conversation by private message or post a thread in ATMB. ---
**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, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/104 "2012-08-16T14:19:33Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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? Maybe they were Raptured? No, wait, we would have found their clothes. ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/105 "2012-08-16T14:25:16Z")
> [@denquixote](#): > > Voter ID may in fact be acceptable to Democrats in Pennsylvania as well. It is the law in question that is unacceptable…Your implication that Democrats endorse the draconian measures taken in Pennsylvania is flat out wrong and cannot be proven. You know, I got back here with the specific intent of looking up those laws, just to see if they really and truly reflected the same approaches as others, you know, giving the **Brickeroonie** the old fact check. Only to find that you had pre-empted my effort, and done it succinctly and well. First, kudos. Second, I’ll get you for this, if its the last thing I do! ---
**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, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/106 "2012-08-16T14:34:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. Following up on this line of thought… I note how the reports mention that the judge decided that the state was offering sincere and effective efforts to supply voter id to those without. Which would be totally cool in my book, and render my objections moot. Hell, with an adequate and effective outreach program to ensure reliable, quick and convenient access to voter id for those without, I would be completely in favor. But here’s the rub: try as I will, I can’t find any reference to such programs. I would be looking for some provisions in the law, probably, to set up the bureaucratic machinery to actualize such an effort. Some staff hired or assigned, a budget, good stuff like that. Did the state actually show the judge any such proof of their good intentions? Or did he simply rely on their “credibility”? Worse case: they just stood there and said “Yeah, sure, Your Honor, we’ll take care of that, no sweat!” and the judge said “Good enough for me”? ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/107 "2012-08-16T14:40:17Z")
> [@denquixote](#): > > 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. I agree you make a good point with respect to the Delaware law. But explain a bit more why Rhode Island’s law, which creates essentially the same requirement for government-issued photo ID, is acceptable and Pennsylvania’s is not. I don’t follow your “It doesn’t take effect until 2014, so it’s OK” argument. Indiana’s took effect in 2004. Does that mean it’s now OK? ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/108 "2012-08-16T14:42:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or, in the alternative, the trial judge saw a lying witness. Why, yes, that is an alternative! Is he under any requirement to prove that, or can he simply slander anyone he wants so long as he can bang his little gavel? If he says the witness is not “credible”, does that mean (as you hasten to insinuate) that the witness is lying, or that the witness is simply wrong? ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/109 "2012-08-16T14:48:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree you make a good point with respect to the Delaware law… You didn’t know that? This is new information for you? Or did you simply neglect to include such, in your headlong haste to protect voter confidence? > [@](#): > > …But explain a bit more why Rhode Island’s law, which creates essentially the same requirement for government-issued photo ID, is acceptable and Pennsylvania’s is not. I don’t follow your “It doesn’t take effect until 2014, so it’s OK” argument… Kinda obvious, isn’t it, Counselor? The extra time is allotted so that people have plenty of opportunity to get what they need, yes? Instead of a desperate rush to get these laws in place before the next election? Is there some emergency, some pressing need to get this in place? I wonder what that might be! Ponder, ponder… > [@](#): > > …Indiana’s took effect in 2004. Does that mean it’s now OK? By now, eight years later? Probably. Got a point? ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/110 "2012-08-16T15:11:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You didn’t know that? This is new information for you? Or did you simply neglect to include such, in your headlong haste to protect voter confidence? No, I didn’t, although in truth now that I think about it, something is kind of ringing a bell. But I can’t say it was at the forefront of my mind. > [@](#): > > Kinda obvious, isn’t it, Counselor? The extra time is allotted so that people have plenty of opportunity to get what they need, yes? Instead of a desperate rush to get these laws in place before the next election? Is there some emergency, some pressing need to get this in place? I wonder what that might be! Ponder, ponder… Not obvious to me. But I can see the point. Someone might say, “Look, I have a good-faith belief that these laws won’t survive a challenge, and I don’t have time to mount a challenge before they become effective.” It sure seems to me, though, that they’d have to say something more to justify their belief. In other words, Indiana – which you agree that the Indiana law, passed in 2004 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008, is now acceptable – has sort of set the standard. Someone complaining about the lack of time should explain what they see as different about their challenge. In other words, if Indiana is acceptable, why isn’t Pennsylvania? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/111 "2012-08-16T15:12:36Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > 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? Could someone respond to this post, please? ---
**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, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/112 "2012-08-16T15:16:48Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Could someone respond to this post, please? The 186,000 number is garbage. ---
**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 16, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/113 "2012-08-16T15:20:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The 186,000 number is garbage. Cite? ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/114 "2012-08-16T15:25:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree you make a good point with respect to the Delaware law. > > But explain a bit more why Rhode Island’s law, which creates essentially the same requirement for government-issued photo ID, is acceptable and Pennsylvania’s is not. I don’t follow your “It doesn’t take effect until 2014, so it’s OK” argument. > > Indiana’s took effect in 2004. Does that mean it’s now OK? Rhode Island’s current law, until 2014, allows the submission of non-photo ID’s, including birth certificates, social security cards, university ID, etc. Thus a voter is not rushing to get an ID for the current election which may be the only one s/he intends to vote in. By delaying the implementation until 2014, in the same way that some legislatures are barred fromn raising their own salaries but may raise the salary of the next, Rhode Island has taken the “favors this or that party” argument off the table. Maybe it will allow Romney to win in 2016 but it will not effect Obama’s chances at all. However the big difference is the allowance of a voter’s affadavit to be filed with his provisional ballot, to be examined by the election board, stating that s/he is registered but unable to provide proof of identity. The election board shall compare the signature on the affadavit with the signature on the registration and allow or disallow the vote accordingly. As long as there is such an emergency provision, for those who cannot afford money or time to get the appropriate ID, or who lost it or had it stolen, or just plain forgot it, the vast majority of persons can live with the law. But Pennsylvania, again has no such provision. With regard to Indiana, if I were an Indiana resident I would object to it just because it is so hard to understand, but there is allowance for a provisional ballot, though it is not clear if a return trip to the precinct is required. That would, IMHO, be excessive. The fact that it was passed so long ago does indicate that it was not passed to harass our current president unlike the law in Pennsylvania. ---
**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, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/115 "2012-08-16T15:32:44Z")
> [@denquixote](#): > > Rhode Island’s current law, until 2014, allows the submission of non-photo ID’s, including birth certificates, social security cards, university ID, etc. Thus a voter is not rushing to get an ID for the current election which may be the only one s/he intends to vote in. By delaying the implementation until 2014, in the same way that some legislatures are barred fromn raising their own salaries but may raise the salary of the next, Rhode Island has taken the “favors this or that party” argument off the table. Maybe it will allow Romney to win in 2016 but it will not effect Obama’s chances at all. > > However the big difference is the allowance of a voter’s affadavit to be filed with his provisional ballot, to be examined by the election board, stating that s/he is registered but unable to provide proof of identity. The election board shall compare the signature on the affadavit with the signature on the registration and allow or disallow the vote accordingly. > > As long as there is such an emergency provision, for those who cannot afford money or time to get the appropriate ID, or who lost it or had it stolen, or just plain forgot it, the vast majority of persons can live with the law. But Pennsylvania, again has no such provision. > > With regard to Indiana, if I were an Indiana resident I would object to it just because it is so hard to understand, but there is allowance for a provisional ballot, though it is not clear if a return trip to the precinct is required. That would, IMHO, be excessive. The fact that it was passed so long ago does indicate that it was not passed to harass our current president unlike the law in Pennsylvania. So (setting aside for the moment how provisional ballots are handled) your position is that the law in Indiana is fine (apart from being hard to understand). Because it wasn’t passed to harass our current president. But the law in Pennsylvania is not, because it was passed to harass our current president? OK. I simply reject that reasoning. The motive behind the law is utterly irrelevant. It’s either valid, or not, on its face. ---
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/116 "2012-08-16T15:34:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Cite? _Applewhite et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_. ---
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/117 "2012-08-16T15:34:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Cite? Where did the original number come from? _ **Numerous sources** are reporting that 186,830 registered voters in Philadelphia do not have the needed photo ID_ Do you consider “numerous sources” an acceptable cite? To me, it sounds like someone made up a number and several others repeated it. Where is the “cite” for these 186,830 “registered” voters and how did they “register” without an ID? ---
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/118 "2012-08-16T15:35:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …In other words, if Indiana is acceptable, why isn’t Pennsylvania? No, I don’t say that at all, I say that over the passage of time, whatever ill effects of the law have most likely been washed away. Doesn’t mean that a pell-mell rush, emergency! emergency! AAArrroooga AAArrroooga…is justified, or desirable. Look if they go about this the right way, if there intentions were sincere, and proper safeguards and outreach in place, I wouldn’t have _any_ objection. Which I have said any number of times, but it doesn’t seem to get through to you, somehow. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/119 "2012-08-16T15:42:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _Applewhite et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_. Perhaps when you are not so busy you will quote for us the relevant passage therein. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/120 "2012-08-16T15:46:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, I don’t say that at all, I say that over the passage of time, whatever ill effects of the law have most likely been washed away. Doesn’t mean that a pell-mell rush, emergency! emergency! AAArrroooga AAArrroooga…is justified, or desirable. > > Look if they go about this the right way, if there intentions were sincere, and proper safeguards and outreach in place, I wouldn’t have _any_ objection. Which I have said any number of times, but it doesn’t seem to get through to you, somehow. Are “proper safeguards and outreach” in place in Indiana? Were their intentions sincere in Indiana? The challengers to the Indiana law at the time sure didn’t think so: > [@](#): > > In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it. In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge, Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F.Supp.2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper. > > But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting "the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=7)