• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pennyslvania Did the Right Thing Regarding Voter ID Law

ArlingtonDeac said:
Actually, it's morally repugnant to draft a law restricting a guaranteed constitutional right without any proven necessity of such a law, regardless of whether complying is difficult or not. When dealing with a fundamental constitutional right, the burden is on the proposed legislation to prove that it has a point, not on the people to establish that the rule isn't too much trouble. Voter ID laws fail this test emphatically.

I assume you equally support second amendment restrictions that might be proposed and passed, regardless of whether they are proven to be necessary, or if they only create a small burden on gun owners?
Click to expand...

I would say it is morally repugnant to disregard the integrity of our voting process by not instituting the absolute minimal safeguard of requiring identification to vote. To me, that falls within the same common sense requirements as having curtains around the voting booths and keeping voter intimidation off of the voting grounds.

And sure, as mentioned above, I had no problems with second amendment restrictions that impose only small burdens on gun owners, until today when I found out that I should be able to get out of the requirement simply by complaining that it is too much of a pain in my ass to go get the paperwork.
 
ZERO cases of voter impersonation PA. There is no threat to "the integrity of our voting process.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It's insane to say that the issue of voter i.d. is a litmus test for reasonableness (what you said). It's dishonest to say that I (or anyone, to my review) has said "If we don't have voter i.d.s, the entire election is a fraud, without regard to the margin of victory". (what nobody said).

First, to what you said: Do you see no room for reasonable disagreement about voter identification? This issue is so perfectly clear to you--that there is absolutely no potential for fraud, since the penalties are too high (RJ actually said this. In public.)---and anyone who disagrees with that immaculate opinion is manifestly unreasonable? Absolute, absolute, absolute.

Second, to what I didn't say: I didn't say what you pretend I said. Nobody would say "Either we have i.d.s, or the entire election is fraudulent, without regard to the margin of victory." What I believe is that it helps bolster confidence in the integrity of the electoral process when we treat self-governance in accordance with its status as a sacred rite. If candidate A wins in a Reagan-esque landslide, no one would doubt the legitimacy of the outcome. But do YOU purport to say that a party never casts doubt on the integrity of the result of a close election? If so, did you miss the last decade? YOUR party did that. Why not be smart when you have the chance?
Click to expand...

Is this a response to me? If so, it's about things I didn't say.

Use your search engine. I'm for voter ID laws as long as they don't make it harder to get an ID and don't change the rules for the election within such as short window. Voting has already started in some place. Put in voter ID laws that make it easier for people to get an ID and make them effective on January 1, 2014.

The litmus test is that the people who insist it has to be done now are unreasonable.
 
WFFaithful said:
An illegally cast vote can be removed, and the person can be punished. While a person can be punished for illegally possessing a gun, the dead guy cannot be brought back to life.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, buddy. Have you learned nothing from your boy BKF's rants? The blood from those votes for Bush is now most certainly on your hands.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It's insane to say that the issue of voter i.d. is a litmus test for reasonableness (what you said). It's dishonest to say that I (or anyone, to my review) has said "If we don't have voter i.d.s, the entire election is a fraud, without regard to the margin of victory". (what nobody said).

First, to what you said: Do you see no room for reasonable disagreement about voter identification? This issue is so perfectly clear to you--that there is absolutely no potential for fraud, since the penalties are too high (RJ actually said this. In public.)---and anyone who disagrees with that immaculate opinion is manifestly unreasonable? Absolute, absolute, absolute.

Second, to what I didn't say: I didn't say what you pretend I said. Nobody would say "Either we have i.d.s, or the entire election is fraudulent, without regard to the margin of victory." What I believe is that it helps bolster confidence in the integrity of the electoral process when we treat self-governance in accordance with its status as a sacred rite. If candidate A wins in a Reagan-esque landslide, no one would doubt the legitimacy of the outcome. But do YOU purport to say that a party never casts doubt on the integrity of the result of a close election? If so, did you miss the last decade? YOUR party did that. Why not be smart when you have the chance?
Click to expand...

I, personally, see no room for reasonable disagreement where a court finds that obtaining the required IDs is in fact difficult, that the law in question could lead to voter suppression without any proof of the existence of an actual problem being addressed, and, therefore, that the measure must be stayed until it can be modified so that it doesn't have a discriminatory effect. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that a law so adjudged must take effect now, in this election, without the kinks being worked out. It sounds much more like sour grapes at the last chance for the GOP to win PA disappearing.

If you really believe in voter ID laws, you should currently be crafting better laws, that truly distribute acceptable IDs to those without them, so that the "integrity of the election process" can be maintained without doing the opposite, which is disenfranchising legitimate voters, thus actually damaging the "integrity of the election process" (and without proven purpose). The problem is, state GOPs don't want better laws, they want these laws, right now, to suppress Dem voters in 2012. By 2016, this problem will have basically disappeared on its own, and people can have all the reasonable voter IDs laws they want. Rest assured, no will want them then, however.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. To do so, North Carolina requires that I first obtain a purchase permit. To obtain said purchase permit, I have to drive to the permitting desk at the main County police station to both pick up and drop off the paper application (not available online and they will not mail it to me). Said permitting desk is only open during limited hours during business hours, and is over a 30-minute drive from where I work in another county. Apparently, I need to sue the state to forego the application process, as there is a significant hardship in obtaining the paperwork. Then everyone will be able to get their guns without having to prove who they say they are. Sweet.
Click to expand...

The state has amply proven, by hard evidence, that such burdens on gun ownership are necessary to protect public safety. If there was any such proof that such voter ID regulations were necessary to protect elections, the laws would be in place. But no such proof was proffered, or even exists, therefore the law fails. You understand that that is how constitutional law works. You don't get to impose a burden without first proving a need. Not alleging. Proving through the submission of objective evidence. No such proof was ever offered in PA, because the proof actually cuts the other way. The problem being regulated does not seem to actually exist in any objectively verifiable form. It's just a big hunch, or something. Therefore, you don't get to impose the burden on voters. And we haven't even mentioned here the second issue, that of discriminatory impact, which the law also failed.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I would say it is morally repugnant to disregard the integrity of our voting process by not instituting the absolute minimal safeguard of requiring identification to vote. To me, that falls within the same common sense requirements as having curtains around the voting booths and keeping voter intimidation off of the voting grounds.

And sure, as mentioned above, I had no problems with second amendment restrictions that impose only small burdens on gun owners, until today when I found out that I should be able to get out of the requirement simply by complaining that it is too much of a pain in my ass to go get the paperwork.
Click to expand...

You don't get to suddenly move the goalposts on a constitutional right, and institute a burden, without first establishing that your "safeguard" is both necessary and not counterproductive. This is black-letter constitutional law theory, as you no doubt know but seem to be ignoring. A law has to prove itself necessary when it creates a burden on a constitutional right. With evidence. Studies. Statistics. Hard objective, proof that a problem exists. Full-body laser X-ray scans linked to a compulsory national database would also increase the integrity of the election process. But without any proof that the problem your attacking actually exists, you have, well, nothing. No leg to stand on.

It's not a legal argument to say "we can't prove it, but this burden will make things so much better, don't worry about the consequences." You need proof of a problem. You need a tightly tailored solution that protects against discrimination. In this case, the proof actually cuts against the laws, and the solution leads to verifiable cases of disenfranchisement. Fail, fail.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
You don't get to suddenly move the goalposts on a constitutional right, and institute a burden, without first establishing that your "safeguard" is both necessary and not counterproductive. This is black-letter constitutional law theory, as you no doubt know but seem to be ignoring. A law has to prove itself necessary when it creates a burden on a constitutional right. With evidence. Studies. Statistics. Hard objective, proof that a problem exists. Full-body laser X-ray scans linked to a compulsory national database would also increase the integrity of the election process. But without any proof that the problem your attacking actually exists, you have, well, nothing. No leg to stand on.

It's not a legal argument to say "we can't prove it, but this burden will make things so much better, don't worry about the consequences." You need proof of a problem. You need a tightly tailored solution that protects against discrimination. In this case, the proof actually cuts against the laws, and the solution leads to verifiable cases of disenfranchisement. Fail, fail.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is completely inapplicable. This is not a law disqualifying voters or in any way burdening the Constitutional right. It is simply establishing an administrative pre-requisite to exercise that right. You can go through each of the Constitutional rights and find plenty of administrative pre-requesites and regulations surrounding the implementation of the right. The First Amendment allows folks to peaceably assemble, but every major city across the country requires a demonstration permit. Did someone prove that said permit is necessary in each case - of course not, it is a funding mechanism for the city, and it doesn't impair the right at all, because all the people has to do is fill out a form. Same with the gun permit under the Second Amendment. Same as local rules requiring that you file a Civil Action Cover Sheet to initiate a legal proceding to challenge an eminent domain taking or get your trial by jury. We can go down the list. Every Amendment has a multitude of administrative pre-requisites that are a pain in the ass but do not constitute any "burden on the constitutional right" as you claim.
 
An administrative prerequisite is the definition of a burden. Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws were administrative prerequisites. To justify one, you must prove its necessity, and that it is narrowly tailored to avoid discriminatory impact, under strict scrutiny. The PA voter ID law failed both counts.
 
Last edited:
Using what dictionary? The ID is free and available to anyone over 18 and does not burden the right in any material way. This is in no way comparable to poll taxes or Jim Crow laws. This is comparable to obtaining the protest permit (for which, shockingly, you need an ID). If not, please explain how it is different.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Using what dictionary? The ID is free and available to anyone over 18 and does not burden the right in any material way. This is in no way comparable to poll taxes or Jim Crow laws. This is comparable to obtaining the protest permit (for which, shockingly, you need an ID). If not, please explain how it is different.
Click to expand...

How have you proven its necessity?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I, personally, see no room for reasonable disagreement where a court finds that obtaining the required IDs is in fact difficult, that the law in question could lead to voter suppression without any proof of the existence of an actual problem being addressed, and, therefore, that the measure must be stayed until it can be modified so that it doesn't have a discriminatory effect. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that a law so adjudged must take effect now, in this election, without the kinks being worked out. It sounds much more like sour grapes at the last chance for the GOP to win PA disappearing.

If you really believe in voter ID laws, you should currently be crafting better laws, that truly distribute acceptable IDs to those without them, so that the "integrity of the election process" can be maintained without doing the opposite, which is disenfranchising legitimate voters, thus actually damaging the "integrity of the election process" (and without proven purpose). The problem is, state GOPs don't want better laws, they want these laws, right now, to suppress Dem voters in 2012. By 2016, this problem will have basically disappeared on its own, and people can have all the reasonable voter IDs laws they want. Rest assured, no will want them then, however.
Click to expand...

You need a court to tell you what is true in everyday life? I don't think you do. I certainly don't. I got a license when I was 16. Of course, the State didn't trust me to vote when I was 16. Voting is harder than getting an i.d. The legislature tells you that, but I'm sure a court would agree if it makes you feel better.
 
I don't think that your reply fits anything I wrote in the post you quoted. I think I've explained pretty thoroughly why this law failed and had to be stayed. It doesn't pass muster under constitutional law. You need an actual necessity for a law that infringes a constitutional right. There is no necessity for voter ID to protect elections. There's no proof a problem exists to support the burden required. None was offered. Zip. That's why the law fails. As any regulation should in "every day life" if it can't be proven to serve a purpose that necessitates its existence, and would, in fact, create negative implications in its administration.

I don't need to a court tell me that we shouldn't pass laws regarding statistically insignificant problems, if said laws create actual, cognizable problems. And it's just plain common sense that we shouldn't pass laws that can be better tailored to suit the problems intended to be dealt with, or that we should wait until the laws are sufficiently tailored before we enact them. Score one for common sense in Pennsylvania.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I don't think that your reply fits anything I wrote in the post you quoted. I think I've explained pretty thoroughly why this law failed and had to be stayed. It doesn't pass muster under constitutional law. You need an actual necessity for a law that infringes a constitutional right. There is no necessity for voter ID to protect elections. There's no proof a problem exists to support the burden required. None was offered. Zip. That's why the law fails. As any regulation should in "every day life" if it can't be proven to serve a purpose that necessitates its existence, And would in fact create negative implications and its administration.

I don't need to a court tell me that we shouldn't pass laws regarding statistically insignificant problems, if said laws create actual, cognizable problems. And it's just plain common sense that we shouldn't pass laws that can be better tailored to suit the problems intended to be dealt with, or that we should wait until the laws are sufficiently tailored before we enact them. Score one for common sense in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

I agree with arlington on this one. The law is questionalble. And besides, even if you are illegal you have skin in this election. The land of opportunity isn't what it once was.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I don't think that your reply fits anything I wrote in the post you quoted. I think I've explained pretty thoroughly why this law failed and had to be stayed. It doesn't pass muster under constitutional law. You need an actual necessity for a law that infringes a constitutional right. There is no necessity for voter ID to protect elections. There's no proof a problem exists to support the burden required. None was offered. Zip. That's why the law fails. As any regulation should in "every day life" if it can't be proven to serve a purpose that necessitates its existence, and would, in fact, create negative implications in its administration.

I don't need to a court tell me that we shouldn't pass laws regarding statistically insignificant problems, if said laws create actual, cognizable problems. And it's just plain common sense that we shouldn't pass laws that can be better tailored to suit the problems intended to be dealt with, or that we should wait until the laws are sufficiently tailored before we enact them. Score one for common sense in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Again, this does not infringe a Constitutional right. I'm still waiting to hear how this is any different than the necessity to obtain a protest permit.

This is the text of the 26th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Please explain to me how requiring identification showing that someone is a US citizen over 18 denies or abridges the right of anyone to vote on account of their age.
 
And here is the 24th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Again, clearly, nothing about requiring an ID infringes on the right granted under this Amendment.
 
Nice, when I file my 1040 this year I will just send it in with a few thousand ID cards.

ETA: If traveling to get an ID card is a tax, then so is traveling to vote, so the government needs to provide a mobile voting booth that will come to my house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top