# 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:** 9
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/161 "2012-08-16T23:19:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course verifying the voter’s identity can be established many ways. There is no reason it has to be a picture ID, right? The value of a photo ID is obvious. So actually, yes, there are plenty of reasons it should be photo ID. Primarily, whatever method is used should be legally sufficient to establish identity in a subsequent trial. If I’m accused of voting in Montgomery County, and the evidence against me is that so done showed up with a copy of my phone bill, there’s no way I can be convicted. ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/162 "2012-08-16T23:22:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You mean, like some guy claims to be an eyewitness to someone promoting voter fraud by illegal aliens, but tells stories in two different ways, with substantial details at variance? That sort of “demeanor”? That’s not demeanor. And if that’s a sly reference to my discussion of the CASA volunteer’s exhortation to illegal aliens to vote…the variances between the two times I told the story were trivial, not substantial. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/163 "2012-08-16T23:24:28Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Ok, I’ll address it. I believe the study and not your rebuttal. Happy? That’s fine. But that’s more of a statement of opinion. In what specific way is my rebuttal flawed? Is it simply that it fails to support your preferred position? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/164 "2012-08-16T23:45:09Z")
As much as it the study itself fails to support yours. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/165 "2012-08-16T23:53:04Z")
About that question I was asking about the the State declaring that there were outreach programs and voter id projects to ensure that no one would be “discommoded” by these laws? I wondered what evidence was offered of such an effort. Have workers been assigned, offices opened, a budget arrived at? Usually what happens, isn’t it? So, I wondered, did the State offer any such evidence to the judge in support of such claims? Got my answer: > **[Pennsylvania Judge Keeps Voter ID Law Intact on Its Way to Higher Court...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/pennsylvania-judge-keeps-voter-id-law-intact.html)** > > An appeal to the state Supreme Court was planned after opponents of a requirement for photo identification were denied an injunction. > [@](#): > > …He said he took _at face value_ promises by state officials … (emphasis added) Must have been their demeanor. In the same article, a side note of interest only to such pathetic wonks as might care about such stuff… > [@](#): > > …She [Plaintiff lawyer] said that courts in Missouri and Wisconsin had applied a stricter standard against infringements on voting rights…Judge Simpson noted in his ruling that _if he had applied a strict standard_, which he considered inappropriate given state and federal precedent, _his decision might have come out differently_… (Emphasis added and two separate paragraphs joined for brevity, full quote available at cite) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/166 "2012-08-17T00:01:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s an article about the Minnesota cases: From that very site: > [@](#): > > Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky, who sits on the governor’s special committee and is widely considered to be a state expert on voting, said that the vast majority of such cases involve people who have been convicted of a felony, are ineligible to vote, but do anyway. > > But these are isolated cases that could not be solved by implementing a voter identification law, he said. And unlike other states, there’s no evidence that Minnesota has had large, organized attempts to violate the law, Mansky said. > > “This is just individuals acting on their own, with imperfect information, no information,” he said. To me, voter ID doesn’t really solve much. Registration fraud is where the issue is. And absentee ballot fraud. [/QUOTE] And, as your cite implies, sloppy registration records. Do MN election boards not get informed of felony convictions, so they can rebuff felons who show up to vote instead of handing them ballots? ID laws won’t solve _any_ problem the GOP partisans have imagined might exist. Their actual goals are, of course, the actual effects, despite any other claims you might hear from them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/167 "2012-08-17T00:56:35Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > As much as it the study itself fails to support yours. In what SPECIFIC way is my rebuttal flawed? ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/168 "2012-08-17T01:03:39Z")
Surely the people behind these laws know the statistics. These laws where written and promoted by the good people of ALEC, who are anything but stupid. They have to know that they don’t do anything to solve the types of fraud that actually do occur. They have to know that some number (be it large or small) of people who currently can legitimately vote won’t be able to this November. They have to know that it’s harder for poorer people to obtain the needed ID than it is for people who are better off. They have to know the demographics concerning how people vote. I understand that there are many people who sincerely believe these laws are needed to stop voter impersonation. I’m not talking about them. They’re mostly people who don’t have the time, or the interest, to look beyond the propaganda. I’m talking about the people who’ve proposed these laws and pushed the bad information. They must be either stupid or malicious, and, as I said before, these people aren’t stupid. (Yes, yes. I know. Voter confidence. Please. :rolleyes:) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/169 "2012-08-17T01:07:44Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > (Yes, yes. I know. Voter confidence. Please. :rolleyes:) This is not what I would call a rebuttal that is remarkable for its cogency. Apart from “Please,” emphasized with a roll eyes smiley, why are you entitled to reject voter confidence as a reason? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/170 "2012-08-17T01:10:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, now, **Bricker** has a point, voter confidence is a totally huge issue. [Well, it is](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), but it’s not voter fraud we should particularly worried about. It’s more \* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\* But I don’t see Bricker spending endless hours debating whether we should be using electronic voting machines that don’t even bother keeping paper records. No, instead of machines with [massive known security flaws](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060731/124206.shtml) that could potentially flip entire states, Bricker is worried about illusory legions of illegal aliens and convicted felons casting a handful of votes. ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/171 "2012-08-17T01:27:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is not what I would call a rebuttal that is remarkable for its cogency. Apart from “Please,” emphasized with a roll eyes smiley, why are you entitled to reject voter confidence as a reason? We’ve been through this all in other threads. Voter confidence is not a valid justification for passing laws that solve nothing while creating problems for legitimate voters. And I am entitled to have my own opinions and reject ridiculous excuses, regardless of what you may think. ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/172 "2012-08-17T01:28:28Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > [Well, it is](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), but it’s not voter fraud we should particularly worried about. It’s more \* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\* But I don’t see Bricker spending endless hours debating whether we should be using electronic voting machines that don’t even bother keeping paper records. No, instead of machines with [massive known security flaws](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060731/124206.shtml) that could potentially flip entire states, Bricker is worried about illusory legions of illegal aliens and convicted felons casting a handful of votes. Yes, but having a real verifiable paper trail doesn’t make it harder for people to vote! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/173 "2012-08-17T02:03:41Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > We’ve been through this all in other threads. Voter confidence is not a valid justification for passing laws that solve nothing while creating problems for legitimate voters. Why is it not a valid justification? > [@](#): > > And I am entitled to have my own opinions and reject ridiculous excuses, regardless of what you may think. Well, of course you can have your opinion. But Elections, much like GD, is not a forum in which an unsupported opinion carries any currency. What evidence supports your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/174 "2012-08-17T02:05:11Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > [Well, it is](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), but it’s not voter fraud we should particularly worried about. It’s more \* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\* But I don’t see Bricker spending endless hours debating whether we should be using electronic voting machines that don’t even bother keeping paper records. No, instead of machines with [massive known security flaws](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060731/124206.shtml) that could potentially flip entire states, Bricker is worried about illusory legions of illegal aliens and convicted felons casting a handful of votes. Since that citation is six years old, which states are currently using machines you believe are problematic? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/175 "2012-08-17T02:12:35Z")
Cheese Louise, **Fin** , don’t you know? Never give **Bricker** an opening to change the subject! ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/176 "2012-08-17T02:19:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since that citation is six years old, which states are currently using machines you believe are problematic? Well, now that I’ve[Googled it for you](http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20113063-245/e-voting-machines-vulnerable-to-remote-vote-changing/), I guess your confidence in the voting process is at a new [low](http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/)? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/177 "2012-08-17T02:23:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Cheese Louise, **Fin** , don’t you know? Never give **Bricker** an opening to change the subject! Well, Bricker is arguing that the confidence in the voting system he gets from those voter ID laws helps him sleep at night. I figure that unless he’s some kind of colossal hypocrite, that once he finds out how flawed the voting system actually is, he’ll be equally relentless in his campaign against flawed electronic systems. My logic is flawless, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/178 "2012-08-17T02:33:58Z")
Never claimed he was personally worried about voter confidence. Merely claims that it is a valid concern, thus passing the lowest minimum bar. And therefore kosher, legal, and Constitutional regardless of the corrupt motivations of its originators. He has a very carefully compartmentalized system of thought. ---
**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 17, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/179 "2012-08-17T02:55:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it not a valid justification? Are you seriously arguing that voter confidence is at such a low point, that it’s such a threat to the union, that making voting much more difficult for large numbers of legitimate voters is a lesser evil? > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, of course you can have your opinion. But Elections, much like GD, is not a forum in which an unsupported opinion carries any currency. What evidence supports your opinion? It’s not an unsupported opinion, it’s a value judgement. My values tell me that the goal of increasing “voter confidence” does not justify the negative effects of these laws. My common sense tells me that “voter confidence” is a bogus justification for laws that have a much different purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582/180 "2012-08-17T08:13:46Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Are you seriously arguing that voter confidence is at such a low point, that it’s such a threat to the union, that making voting much more difficult for large numbers of legitimate voters is a lesser evil? Making voting SLIGHTLY more difficult for a FEW voters. Yes, that’s exactly my position. > [@](#): > > It’s not an unsupported opinion, it’s a value judgement. My values tell me that the goal of increasing “voter confidence” does not justify the negative effects of these laws. My common sense tells me that “voter confidence” is a bogus justification for laws that have a much different purpose. OK. But then why are your values offered up as automatically the only possible correct ones? Why must society ignore the clear mandate of its majority and instead follow your values? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pennsylvania-upholds-voter-id-law/631582.md?page=10)