51 years they’ve pursued this woman who marched with Dr. King . . .


. . . and now they’ve figured out how to keep her from voting:  A “voter I.D. law” in Pennsylvania.  Viviette Applewhite is suing to keep her right to vote.

From the website of ACLU of Pennsylvania:

On May 1, 2012, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Advancement Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP), and the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP filed a lawsuit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to overturn the voter ID law passed by the General Assembly in March 2012.

The lawsuit alleges that the state’s voter photo ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. The plaintiffs are asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the law before November’s election. If the law is not overturned, most of the plaintiffs will be unable to cast ballots in the fall, despite the fact that many of them have voted regularly for decades.

Voter identification laws passed through several legislatures in the past half decade frequently cause more voters to lose their voting privileges than frauds prevented.  While there is no evidence of significant voter fraud caused by someone stealing another’s identity to vote — the only voter fraud voter identification laws is aimed at — there are thousands, or tens of thousands of people in every state where these laws are passed who cannot get suitable identification papers to vote.

Although these citizens often are long-time voters, good citizen parents who have raised outstanding children and performed their civic duties thr0ughout their lives, they often lack the technically picky identity documents to get a voter identification card.  Their stories are not unique, but surprisingly common, shared by millions of Americans:

  • Many were born outside hospitals, and lack birth certificates.  Though no one doubts their life history, the voter laws do not allow usual forms of identification to get a voter card.  These people can get credit cards, can buy and sell property, and can cash checks in their towns.  But the identification used to secure financial transactions do not satisfy the voter identification laws.
  • A significant portion of these people are simply elderly, and gave up driving.  Consequently they lack a current drivers license.  Clearly they cannot get a new drivers license, but they also cannot get a voter identification card without great effort, sometimes without great cost, and almost always, in time to vote in this year’s elections.
  • In Texas, the now-stayed-by-a-federal-court voter ID law allows a handgun license to be used as identification, but not a photo identification from a state college or university.  Among other arguments the courts found convincing in staying the law, in 81 of Texas’s 254 counties, there is no office of any state agency that can issue an accepted voter identification card.  In other words, in a third of Texas counties, it’s impossible to get a valid voter identification card if you don’t already have one.
  • (Updated; see comments) Young people — students, soldiers at basic training, high school graduates still living at home to save money while working to make money — frequently cannot produce the documentation the voter identification laws ask for, like a utility bill in their name.  See the story at Radula, where Dorid discusses one state’s rejecting another state’s birth certificates (as if we hadn’t known that would happen . . .) and other problems; young voters don’t vote as they should, and now we know many who want to vote, will probably be denied.

Meanwhile, from time to time a real case of voter fraud shows up.  I have yet to find one that could have been prevented by voter identification laws.

How many of the voter identification laws were drafted in the smoke-filled, alcohol-laced backrooms of ALEC conferences?

Resources: 

More (with help from Zemanta):

30 Responses to 51 years they’ve pursued this woman who marched with Dr. King . . .

  1. […] “51 years they’ve pursued this woman who marched with Martin Luther King . . .” […]

    Like

  2. […] Reread our earlier story about the woman who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., 51 years ago to secure the right to vote for all Americans — but would be deprived of that right under the current law. […]

    Like

  3. […] 51 years they’ve pursued this woman who marched with Dr. King . . . (timpanogos.wordpress.com) […]

    Like

  4. Nonstick says:

    I seem to recall the LBJ quotes quite…differently. Eisenhower proposed the first voting rights act, blocked by Democrats. Seeing that the tide was turning, LBJ made the shift:

    “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Kessler’s “Inside The White House”

    “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” — LBJ

    No I actually think LBJ was a pretty swell guy for pursuing civil rights, and took a big risk. But let’s not kid oursleves here…he was playing the game as well.

    Ha ha. The southern staregy? I seem to remember Jimmy Carter running a quite racist campagn for governor, and then winning the presidency with the solid south. Seems both sides played a few racist cards…

    “Strom Thurmond, who ran for president as a “Dixiecrat” in 1948… chose to move to the Republican Party for a reason.” Didn’t he have a black daughter? One whom he supported his entire life? And Robert Byrd, Democrat, Klan leader, consience of the senate? Right, he said he was sorry, which is good enough for me!

    So I can’t reference Lincholn, but you can reference Nixon and LBJ? They’re dead too champ. Research research….

    Look, I’m not remotely taking the position that Republicans have never done anything racist, or said anything racist. I’m saying is the have not always been racist, and are not always racist, and the Dems…sheesh…they have a hell of a lot to apologize for. So, how’s about, going forward, we simply avoid the racist catcalls and assumptions, and evalute policies on their merits?

    It has been said that racism creates a prison for both the racist, and the one oppressed. To maintain aprathied requires racism in the hearts of people, but the vast power of the state. Someone has to put up and maintain all those little “whites only” signs.

    Republicans look at this situation and think the solution is not to change the hearts of men, but to remove the mechanism for tyranny. Tear down the prison walls. Racism will then fade from the hearts of most people.

    Dems took a different turn – change the hearts of men, and the prison will have no guards. It crumbles.

    Both work.

    The problem is that Repubs see no difference between a state with the power to say “Whites only” and one that can require school busing or affirmative action. The mechanism, the power, to enforce racist policies is there, baked in the cake. It is like the Dems want to rebuild the prison, but this time they promise, 12.5% of the guards will be black. This has been said many times and in many ways, but Dems don’t get it. Repubs fear the power of the state, and a state that can enforce diversity can just as easily enforce aparthied.

    I like how you pretend to secret, special knowledge regarding Republicans. Convinced me. Can I mention I worked the Carter campagn, and let’s just say….

    As to the rest…well at least you avoided the use of “uppity” and “House Negro”. Not that the sentiment expressed is really any different. Faced with Black Republicans you essentially say…those are not REAL Republicans, or they are just stupid, or they secretly agree with you…or something.

    You know, Strom thurmond was never a REAL Republican. Because I said so, that’s why.

    Like

  5. […] 51 years they’ve pursued this woman who marched with Dr. King . . . (timpanogos.wordpress.com) […]

    Like

  6. To quote:
    Well Ed, let’s just say you have an unusual interpretation of history regarding Democrats, Republicans, and racism.

    So says the person attempting to rewrite the history of the Republican party since the 1960’s.

    Lincoln at one time spoke for the Republican party. But that was 150+ years ago and the Republican party of his day is not the Republican party that exists today. As I said..the Republican party is a mockery of its former self.

    Sorry, child, your party is now the party of racism, bigotry and the desire to reinstitute Jim Crow. Nothing you say changes that fact because your party is now the party of “conservatives” and it is conservatives who so love bigotry, racism and Jim Crow laws. Bark all you want, Anon, but you’re nothing more then a little brainless dog.

    And more evidence that it is Republicans engaging in voter/election fraud:
    http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/woodlands/news/seven-indicted-for-voter-fraud-in-rud-election/article_fc1e9566-fc51-5d2e-8d93-056a8f4fd8dc.html

    More than a year since a state district judge ruled 10 Montgomery County residents voted fraudulently in a Woodlands election, a grand jury last week indicted seven of those individuals for illegal voting.

    The indictments stem from the May 8, 2010, election of The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1. Ten individuals listed their voter registration address as that of a hotel in order to take control of the RUD board.

    Former Montgomery County Judge candidate Adrian Heath heads the list of people charged with the third-degree felony. Heath declined comment, saying he was looking into hiring an attorney.

    In addition to Heath, the Montgomery County grand jury empanelled in the 9th state District Court handed up indictments for William Berntsen, Thomas Curry, James Alan Jenkins, Peter Goeddertz, Roberta Cook and Sybil Doyle.

    Benjamin and Robert Allison were listed as co-defendants but were not indicted. Richard McDuffee had been among the three challengers who captured an at-large position before the ruling was overturned, but he was not listed as a co-defendant.

    According to indictments released by the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the defendants voted in an election they knew they were not eligible to vote.

    “To-wit: Defendant voted in the May 8, 2010 Woodlands Road Utility District Board of Directors election, when he knew he did not reside in the precinct in which he voted,” the indictment stated.

    The lengthy, legal tussle started when the 10 individuals changed their voter registration address to 9333 Six Pines Drive in The Woodlands, the location of a Residence Inn hotel. The hotel is included in the RUD’s territory.

    McDuffee, Goeddertz and Berntsen each captured an at-large position on the RUD board by a 10-2 margin. Their victory prompted the three incumbents – Gene “Ed” Miller, Bill Neill and Winton Davenport – to file suit against the RUD May 11, 2010, alleging those 10 votes were obtained illegally.

    After hearing three days of testimony in the 410th state District Court, Senior District Judge P.K. Reiter declared the three incumbent board members as the rightful winners of the contest.

    Reiter based his ruling on “clear and convincing” evidence that the voters’ registration applications and the 10 votes casts were “fraudulent.”

    Eight of the individuals – excluding Cook and Doyle – testified it was their intent to establish the hotel as their residence and take control of the RUD board.

    However, Reiter said his final judgment was based on evidence that none of the 10 “contestees” resided within the boundaries of the RUD “on the date each of them signed a voter’s registration application, nor on May 8, 2010, when they voted, not subsequently.”

    (Mr. Heath is a Tea Party activist…and a judicial candidate.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Nonstick, you ain’t Teflon.

    Well Ed, let’s just say you have an unusual interpretation of history regarding Democrats, Republicans, and racism. There are lots of non-partisan places that offer pretty frank and accurate discussions of where the various parties stood when and why. I’d ask simply that you spend a little more time reading up on what Republicans actually said and think, and less time in the liberal echo chamber (yes I know, Republicans are just as bad).

    You mean the history of how Lyndon Johnson said, upon the passing of the ’64 Civil Rights Act, that he had handed the South to conservative racists for many decades? And about how Richard Nixon, fully cognizant of exactly what was happening, developed the “Southern Strategy” to use code words to bring the old racists into the Republican Party?

    It’s not my interpretation of history. Check out Robert Caro’s bios of Johnson. Pick up The Selling of the President 1968. Check the votes. Strom Thurmond, who ran for president as a “Dixiecrat” in 1948, in protest over the civil rights plank inserted into the Democratic platform (by Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey), chose to move to the Republican Party for a reason. The White Citizens’ Councils moved to the Republicans for the same reason.

    I’ll ask you please to stop claiming Abraham Lincoln speaks for the Republicans. He’s dead, and they wouldn’t let him near their conventions these days — nor Mark Hatfield, Ed Brook, nor Gerald Ford.

    The difference is, as I said, the Democrats admitted error, repudiated racism, and moved on to promote human rights. Republicans quietly sought political advantage, embraced error, and have stood against human rights at every turn ever since.

    Look, I staffed the Republicans in Congress. I don’t speak here from ideas I’ve read in books, alone. I’ve seen the history. I know the history. I was in the anterooms when Jesse Helms spelled out the real reasons he opposed a Martin Luther King holiday. (Pure politics, mostly built on racism, and not concern about costs to state governments.) I sat through the hearings on the EEOC. I sat with Jesse Jackson before he met the Republican majority on the Senate Labor Committee in 1981, and I stayed to hear the senators offer their views after Rev. Jackson had left the room.

    I’m an eyes-wide-open Democrat on these issues.

    I certinly believe that your attitude is an insult to people like Condy Rice,

    You should meet Dr. Rice and read some of her books, as I have. I know my statement of history is no insult to her.

    Alan West,

    It’s impossible to insult someone so clueless. Allen West is either an idiot, or evil — and maybe both. Bright and noble, he ain’t. Knowledgeable about civil rights, I doubt. Tool, yes.

    Colin Powell,

    You assume Colin Powell is Republican. Why? Got any evidence? Powell is much too canny to be suckered in by Republican problems and bigotry — even when he works for Republicans. Powell, of all of these you name, is not insulted by the facts.

    Clarence Thomas,

    Mr. Thomas is well aware of the history of both parties, and not particularly fond of civil rights politics at all. Working for John Danforth, in the Indiana AG office and in the Senate, Thomas avoided civil rights issues at every turn (he was working the Sagebrush Rebellion when I met him — go figure). Were he to be insulted, he’d probably be insulted that you think him such a one-dimensional guy, because he’s a bit of a polymath, legally.

    Herman Cain, etc. etc.

    His pizza is lousy, too.

    -your thesis would seem to be that they have joined and believe in unredemably racist party. So, is it their intelligence you are putting down? Perhaps their judgement? Taste? What is it about black Republicans that you refuse to acknowledge or respect? Or could it be, weird I know, that they simply have different opinions, opinions based on differing principals?

    Your test appears to be, “If there are blacks there, it’s not racist.” So, by your definition, slavery in the U.S. was not a racist institution.

    I put no one down. I called no one stupid. You need to study history, and perhaps some modern biography.

    What about this?

    Senate: 77–19
    Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
    Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

    House: 333–85
    Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
    Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

    That’s the vote totals for the voting rights act of 1965. Most of the other major civil rights legislation had similar breakdowns. Sorry but, when did all the racists join the Republicans again?

    The short answer would be 1968, when Republicans actively started recruiting them.

    Look, for most of the 20th century (and long before, really) the Democrats have been the party of great diversity of views. Yeah, the Southern racists — and Utah racists, and Illinois racists, and racists from most other sections of the nation — were Democrats, mostly, but always conservative. It used to be that we hashed out a lot of those issues in the state and national conventions, and Congress was just the formal vote.

    But it was Republicans who last filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Johnson had voted Southern through most of his career in Congress, but as president, as he famously said, he had promised himself when he taught poor Mexican kids in Texas, that if he ever had the power, he would make things better for them, “And now I have the power, and I intend to use it.” Johnson counted better than anyone else, and he knew exactly who, among the so-called southern anti-integration bunch, could give him a vote for the bill and still get elected. (Well, mostly; there was the Texas Congressman whose vote put the bill over in the House after LBJ twisted his arm ferociously. He figured it was the end of his career. It took Johnson about four hours to get him on the phone. Two versions of the story: The Congressman went out to get drunk, and he had difficulty speaking clearly when The President called him at home. Johnson figured he went out to drink, and said something like, ‘Listen, I know exactly what you’re thinking, exactly where you’ve been and exactly how many days are left in this session of Congress — but I will do what I have to, to make sure they are not your last days in Congress. I don’t have to thank you, but I do — and American thanks you, too.’)

    So J. William Fulbright, from Arkansas, the only Rhodes Scholar to sit in Congress to that time, voted against the bill in the final tally. But he helped get cloture to break the Republican filibuster; he was re-elected.

    Hard-heads with red necks and few brains decided it was a party deal. Nixon, and George Wallace, tried hard to capitalize on that disaffection. Nationally, that couldn’t put Wallace over the top for the Democratic nomination. But in Republican hands, discussing other issues in 35 states and using code-word ads in the South and Deep South, Republicans could use those electoral votes to get elected. It’s not coincidence that Ronald Reagan opened his re-election campaign in the South, in a speech loaded with code words about states rights.

    In the 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s, there were several strong civil rights supporters in the Republican Party, nationally. But they tend to get de-elected, just as Richard Lugar in Indiana this past week (and make no error, the Tea Party is stroking that race card as hard as they can without making it burn).

    There’s a reason Allen West can’t run in the Democratic Party. The old civil rights workers wouldn’t let him get out of a precinct convention.

    You’d have to look long and hard just to find an old civil rights worker in the Republican Party. Allen West and J. C. Watts go where they can get elected — but they can’t stand up to those little old ladies, now in wheel chairs, whose feet graced the Edmund Pettis bridge once-upon a time and made it sacred.

    The conversion of the Republican Party from the “Party of Lincoln” to the “Party of States Rights and jeers for Martin Luther King” did not occur overnight. But it was intentional, and it did occur.

    It’s too bad racism didn’t just fall out of politics after the Civil Rights Act, but it didn’t. It moved parties, nationally.

    Like

  8. Nonstick says:

    Well Ed, let’s just say you have an unusual interpretation of history regarding Democrats, Republicans, and racism. There are lots of non-partisan places that offer pretty frank and accurate discussions of where the various parties stood when and why. I’d ask simply that you spend a little more time reading up on what Republicans actually said and think, and less time in the liberal echo chamber (yes I know, Republicans are just as bad).

    I certinly believe that your attitude is an insult to people like Condy Rice, Alan West, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, etc. etc. -your thesis would seem to be that they have joined and believe in unredemably racist party. So, is it their intelligence you are putting down? Perhaps their judgement? Taste? What is it about black Republicans that you refuse to acknowledge or respect? Or could it be, weird I know, that they simply have different opinions, opinions based on differing principals?

    What about this?

    Senate: 77–19
    Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
    Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

    House: 333–85
    Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
    Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

    That’s the vote totals for the voting rights act of 1965. Most of the other major civil rights legislation had similar breakdowns. Sorry but, when did all the racists join the Republicans again?

    James K – see a doctor if the swelling continues. Also, it would make conversation more productive if you knew the difference between fact, conjecture, and something you just made up. Almost everything I’ve ever read by you falls firmly into the later two categories.

    James H – I love when people, confronted with facts, decide to redefine words to win an argument. Democrats become Southern Democrats become Conservatives become Republicans. Ergo, Democrats were never racist, Republicans always were.

    Ed, sorry, but you are simply wrong about what the law says. Stop reading what the ACLU says that law is about, and go to the state of PA website detailing the election rules:

    “NO ONE legally entitled to vote will be denied the right to do so.” That seems…affirmative.

    This has become an oddly demoralizing discussion. A case against voter ID laws that might be worth making, but you guys seem incapable of doing anything other than cheap moral preening, racism bird calls, ad hominum arguments, topic shifting, and definitional migration. What is so hard about finding the facts, and making your case? A few studies showing ID depresses trunout from a reputable source, maybe some examples from differing states and countries. Are your concerns valid? There is some pretty crazy stuff out there (Australia has manditory voting. Mexico only allows voting only with special picture voter ID cards. In Denmark you have to memorize a special number you recieve by mail….) that might be fun to discuss.

    Perhaps I should simply debate myself?

    Anywho, discuss amongst yourselves. I won’t bother you further.

    Like

  9. To quote:
    You mean the laws written by Democrats and enforced by Democrats

    You mean the conservative Democrats who were called Dixiecrats who abandoned the Democrat party and joined the Republican party when Johnson got the Civil Rights act passed?

    I find it cute that you’re attempting to whitewash history like..oh wait..the Communists in the Soviet Union did.

    Like I said..the Democrat part got better..it learned from its mistakes.

    The Republican party is not only gleefully wallowing in ignorance it’s gleefully devolving.

    The party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon and even Reagan…..

    …simply no longer exists. It’s been replaced by a mockery of it..a mockery consisting of various groups of crankpots, religious nutjobs and pseudo-fascists with a wide swath of racism joining them together.

    Your party is the party of racism and Jim Crow…now..in the present. And it will remain that way in the future until you and your fellow conservatives finally kill the Republican party and throw it onto the dustheap of history just like the Whigs that your party descends from. Your party is losing power..which is why it acts as crazy as it does. Your party is simply becoming irrelevent due to the one thing you can’t control….

    …the changing demographics of this country. How does it feel to be growing increasingly irrelevent?

    Like

  10. James Hanley says:

    You mean the laws written by Democrats and enforced by Democrats

    Ahem, by conservatives. It was southern Democrats, the most conservative group of folks in the country back then (there were almost zero southern Republicans at that time). All the traditional conservative southern Dems are gone now, off to join the….wait for it….Republican Party.

    Party ID matters less than ideology. It was conservatives who disenfranchised folks back then, and it’s conservatives who are trying to disenfranchise people now.

    Like

  11. Anon wrote:
    Yeah, the Jim Crow laws written by Democrats. The Democratic Party apologized, and stopped doing that. The Democratic Party pushed for the laws that overturned Jim Crow.

    Yeah you see, Anon, we don’t deny that history. But here’s the thing. The Democrats learned..they evolved..they became better.

    The Republican party? The Party of Lincoln..they devolved..they became the party of racists and of Jim Crow. If slavery was an issue today the GOP would full throatedly defend it.

    And that is fact.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    But…but….?

    Give it up already.

    The new voter identification law in Pennsylvania does away with the possibility of voting a provisional ballot without identification. Give it up? You really do hope to stop thousands from voting, don’t you. Don’t much like democracy, like Paul Weyrich?

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Yeah, the Jim Crow laws written by Democrats. The Democratic Party apologized, and stopped doing that. The Democratic Party pushed for the laws that overturned Jim Crow.

    Sadly, instead of keeping with Lincoln’s stand, the Republicans thought they felt a vacuum, and rushed in to defend Jim Crow, and expand it.

    Jim Crow was evil when Democrats did it. We should have learned our lessons. Jim Crow laws are even more evil today, when we know better.

    Like

  14. Nonstick says:

    James, seriously, seek some professional help.

    And Ed, Ha ha. Jim Crow? You mean the laws written by Democrats and enforced by Democrats to disenfranchise black Americans in the south? I remember those. Next you’ll be breathlessly telling me how we’ve always been at war with Eastasia…

    “Yes, the law does change that. She cannot vote without identification starting with the November elections”

    Sorry, but that is just a lie. She can vote without ID. You and the ACLU are preventing her from voting by lying to her. I keep providing the actual text. I will again:

    “If you do not have an acceptable photo ID you may cast a provisional ballot.”

    Yep, vote without ID. It’s in the law. Or you can get a voter ID by visiting the DMV and paying the extraordinary sum of $13.50. Or she can just get her old ID replaced.

    http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt/community/utility_link/13512/frequently_asked_questions

    http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

    I learned from last time – you don’t bother to do much origional research, but simply accept what you have been trained to believe. Otehriwse I wouldn’t have to keep provding the same information over and over….

    “Alas for the Republic, voter identification laws tend to fuzz up the process, fogging the vision of poll watchers, and so invite real voting fraud and the stealing of elections. ”

    Finally something new. Utterly nonsensical, but new. Next time the TSA asks to see my ID I’ll explain that showing it to them fogs their vision, inviting real terrorism. When I use my credit card, I’ll explain how showing them my ID fogs the process, allowing real identification theft. I’m sure that will make sense to them.

    Look, my question is – why do you insist on maintaining this silly fiction? The only conclusion I can draw is that it is not Republicans that intend to steal the vote, but Democrats. Hence making voting procedures as lax as possible is the goal. Are you truely that intellectually bankrupt? Is there nothing left of the great liberal ideals except the will to power?

    Oh, looky looky, I found a cookie!

    http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/339396_re-insight-the-dems-and-dirty-tricks-internal-use-only-pls.html

    Yes, who knows if it is true? But it is from a relatively neutral source, and was not released intentionally. So it at least has the aura of veracity.

    I’ll do us both a favor and not mention the New Black Panthers poll intimidation incident.

    I notice you passed right over the Boston globe article. So this heinous law resulted in 22,600 people voting, with a total of …less than 25 provisional ballots. So…less than 0.11% of the voters didn’t have valid ID. And they got to vote anyway. And no problems were reported – voters even said they liked the new law…

    But…but….?

    Give it up already.

    Like

  15. Would some Republican like to attempt to explain why their side likes to think that obeying the Bible is a requirement to be President?

    Of course then there is also the fact that the political party that is “biblically hostile” the most is the GOP..as they have no ability to apparently follow what Jesus actually taught.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    She lost her ID, but helping her replace it, that’s like some sort of moon shot for the ACLU and the goverment. MUCH easier to launch a lawsuit against the state to get a judge to throw out the entire law.

    If it’s a moonshot for the government to replace her identification, as you agree, it’s unjust and immoral to make her pay for the moonshot by depriving her of her vote. It’s also bad government.

    But you and I know that keeping this woman from voting was the real intent of the law. There is no significant voter fraud — it’s difficult to find any at all — that can be prevented by requiring little old ladies to get identification that even the state cannot provide.

    This is Jim Crow in the 21st century. It’s ugly, and it should be illegal. God bless the ACLU for fighting Jim Crow.

    And of course you ignore the only salient fact – the law allows her to vote without ID. She absolutely has the right and ability to vote in PA. The law does not change that one iota.

    Yes, the law does change that. She cannot vote without identification starting with the November elections. Again, it’s pretty obvious the intent of the law was to trip up old civil rights workers, senior citizens who no longer drive, and anyone who may have an ethnic background where they don’t drive, in order to stop them from voting. Real people, poor people, senior citizens and civil rights workers tend to vote Democrat. The Republicans hope to stop people from voting, by hook preferably — but by crook, too. Alas for the Republic, voter identification laws tend to fuzz up the process, fogging the vision of poll watchers, and so invite real voting fraud and the stealing of elections.

    That’s also a salient fact: Republicans would like to steal elections away from poor people and all others Jefferson intended to bring into the voting population with “pursuit of happiness” replacing “property” in the Declaration of Independence. The voter identification laws are ugly, and they transgress against the very idea of this republic, and the noble ideals expressed in the Declaration. Shameful.

    Like

  17. Nonstick says:

    Sorry, Ed, but that malarky isan’t cutting it today.

    Someone would step in? The ACLU would be all over this if the problem could be solved? Riiiiight. She lost her ID, but helping her replace it, that’s like some sort of moon shot for the ACLU and the goverment. MUCH easier to launch a lawsuit against the state to get a judge to throw out the entire law.

    And of course you ignore the only salient fact – the law allows her to vote without ID. She absolutely has the right and ability to vote in PA. The law does not change that one iota.

    James, you live in quite the fanciful mental space. To bad so little of it conforms with reality. You post a video from, what, 35 years ago, from a guy never elected to anything, who has been dead for 4 years? And now he speaks for all Republicans for all time? Sheesh. Do I need to even bother with absurd quotes from promenent Democrats along essentially the same lines? Some much more recent?

    And Ed…seriously…do we need to run down the long sordid history of Democrats stealing elections? Winning this argument requires that your pretend votes are never ever stolen, especially by Democrats. Didn’t you get the memo?

    How about answering this question – if voter ID is some nefarious conservative plot, then why are fairly liberal states like Rhode Island, Washington, Hawaii, and Conneticut requiring them? How about quite liberal countries like Belgium and Italy? Damn that miscellaneous non-elected Republican guy – he even got to Italy! There’s no stopping him!

    Heck, just read this article from the ultra conservative Boston Globe:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2012/04/24/no_reports_of_problems_with_ris_new_voter_id_law/

    To quote both Pennisylvania and Rhode Island law: “No eligible voter will be turned away at the polls. Voters who do not bring an acceptable ID to their polling place can vote using a standard Provisional Ballot. The ballot will be counted if the signature they give at their polling place matches the signature on their voter registration.”

    Keep calm and carry on.

    Like

  18. Oh and yes, conservatives, when I compared Paul Ryan and the GOP’s economic beliefs regarding “entitlements” I did make a comparison to EXACTLY THAT Anton LeVay.

    On purpose. Because hey…it actually is a fair comparison when one takes LeVay’s beliefs and compares them to the GOP’s.

    Like

  19. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/greene-county-virginia-gop-obama-revolution_n_1501510.html

    A monthly newsletter published by the Greene County Republican Committee in Virginia is raising eyebrows for including a column in its March edition that calls for an “armed revolution” if President Barack Obama is elected to a second term in November.

    Among articles denouncing a University of Virginia initiative to implement a living wage for employees of the institution, questioning if Obama is “America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President?” and an op-ed slamming the GOP establishment with generous use of capital letters, RightWingWatch picks out a column from the newsletter’s editor, Ponch McPhee.

    In it, McPhee urges readers to encourage other conservatives to vote in November. He goes on to warn that the consequences of not defeating Obama, a so-called “ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized,” would be dire.

    “[W]e shall not have any coarse [sic] but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November,” McPhee writes. “This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

    A disclaimer at the bottom of the publication apparently attempts to account for this type of rhetoric, noting that the contributors do “not reflect the opinion of the Republican Party whole or in part” and are only representative of the “individual” — in this case, the editor himself.

    According to the newsletter, McPhee also hosts a public radio show that airs every Saturday morning at 5:30 a.m on Charlottesville’s WTJU.
    ~~~~~

    And another example of the GOP’s visceral hatred of democracy.

    Like

  20. Oh and you’ll have to also provide a photo ID that not only proves you are who you say you are..but that you’re also not a registered Republican. After all..we can’t have those undesirable committers of fraud voting…..

    Like

  21. Another example of Republican election fraud attempts:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/north-carolina-amendment-one-election-fraud_n_1499992.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008&ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=889909,b=facebook

    Sorry, Morgan and Anon…as we just simply can’t trust the GOP and its cronies to not engage in electioneering and election fraud…you and every other conservative will have to either surrender your right to vote or pay a fee to be allowed to vote. We’ll let you know what the fee will be later…but just a piece of advice…don’t bring your wallet…bring your checkbook and credit cards too..you’ll need them both.

    Like

  22. I was including the NASCAR fans in with what I said about Morgan.

    Like

  23. jsojourner says:

    Now, now, Nick. Don’t forget slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, inbred, Rebel flag wavin’ NASCAR fans!

    Like

  24. JS wrote:
    I can’t imagine what “kinds of people” he might be referring to.

    Why blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays, poor people, old people, any other minority, and all those who stand to lose if the Republicans get their Ayn Rand/Anton Levay inspired deathwish for the United States, of course.

    Basically the Republicans want exactly two groups of people to vote: Rich people like Mittens. And poor stupid dimwits like Morgan who are dumb enough to vote Republican because they think they’ll get rewarded for it.

    Like

  25. jsojourner says:

    Conservative Christian fundamentalist Paul Weyrich said it best years ago.

    Basically, there are certain kinds of people we (conservatives) don’t want to vote.

    I can’t imagine what “kinds of people” he might be referring to.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    More voter registration fraud by Republicans — voter ID can’t solve it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014113597

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    P.S. — I believe the rules you cite were for the primary election just passed. The voter identification law, which will apply in November, does not allow voting without a photo i.d. — the photo badge these plaintiffs can’t get, or which won’t work for them if they do get it (read the stories).

    If you disagree, can you cite a source for us, please?

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    Maybe, just once, you could read the facts in the case. If someone merely stepping in to offer a little assistance would do the trick, ACLU would. This is not a simple solution.

    This woman can’t vote, not because she lost her identification card, but because Republicans in Pennsylvania passed a law that says people in her position should be regarded as criminals.

    Bad enough a thief got her identification. Now the Republican law treats her like a criminal to vote.

    Like

  29. Nonstick says:

    Wow. Ed this is the same sort of pathetic argument you made for Wisconsin, which was entirely without factual basis. Someone stole her ID (not her vote). She had ID. But someone stole it. And she hasn’t been able to replace it. So now she can’t drive a car, fly on a plane, or use a credit card.

    Here’s a random thought. Instead of USING this person, perhaps you could HELP this person. Maybe work on getting her ID replaced.

    And as usual, you’re highly misleading about the law. The actual law requires:

    A voter must show a document that includes (1) the name of the individual that substantially conforms to the name of the individual in the register, (2) a photograph of the individual, and (3) it must include an expiration date and that date must not be expired providing for two exceptions (a) a document issued by the Dept. of Transportation that is not more than twelve months past the expiration date is acceptable, and (b) documents for the Armed Forces of the United States or their reserve components.

    Explicitly, these include:

    1. A Pennsylvania Driver’s License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Transportation;

    2. A valid Identification Card issued by any other agency of the Commonwealth;

    3. A valid Identification Card issued by the United States Government;

    4. A valid United States Passport;

    5. A valid Student Identification Card;

    6. A valid Employee Identification Card; or

    7. A valid Armed Forces of the United States Identification Card.

    8. Photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, including long-tern care facilities, assisted living residents or personal care homes.

    If no identification is brought to the polls the elector shall cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must be submitted in the correct precinct and must have a signature that matches the registration form to be held as genuine.

    Read that last part carefully. She can vote without ID. All she has to do is show up to her polling place, and sign her real name. They check her signature aganist her registration and bingo, she has voted. Pretty simple.

    So my question is – why are people lying to this poor old woman about her ability to vote? There is nothing preventing her from voting. Nothing. But someone has given her the entirely false impression that she cannot vote.

    It is just sad to see the elderly abused this way…..

    Like

  30. Dorid says:

    Ed, Even though I opposed them, I thought that voter ID laws would NEVER touch my family. I was wrong.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: