Judge blocks Pa. photo ID rule for Election Day; governor leaning against appealing decision

  • Article by: MARC LEVY , Associated Press
  • Updated: October 3, 2012 - 2:01 AM
  • 245
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
evldedOct. 2, 12 9:21 AM

As the PA supreme court asked during the hearing: "What's the hurry, GOP?" If the answer is 'giving Mitt Romney the win" then you can wait a year. That's not why we change the voting rules. To favor one party over the other, regardless of demographics. This is America, if you don't like her to be free, and fair, then seriously GOP, you can leave her at any time.

scott5534Oct. 2, 12 9:30 AM

Funny how the reporter adds his opinion, by calling it a "tough" requirement in the title, as opposed to just a requirement.

timandtiaOct. 2, 12 9:31 AM

You will never please everyone! The new law is a good law and should be implemented. The one's who cannot get a ID card probably shouldn't vote anyhow.

johno3Oct. 2, 12 9:42 AM

Now its going to be difficult for the Republican State Chairman to suppress enough votes to hand the state to Romney.

EleanoreOct. 2, 12 9:51 AM

Did PA have a provision for issuing ID's free? How did they plan on overcoming the cost of suporting info to get a state ID? It seems like we are moving into an era of two different qualities of votes, ones that have passed a check that we know who the voters is (voter ID states) and second class votes from states that don't require the basic ID check necessarry to buy cigarettes.

jastkeOct. 2, 12 9:55 AM

From the article :"the state Supreme Court had ordered him to stop the law if he thought anyone eligible would be unable to cast a ballot because of it". For this exact reason it's likely that Minnesota's proposed amendment, if passed, will be the subject of an expensive challenge that will probably result in the same ruling. Add to that the high cost of implementing the system and you have a huge expense for nothing. Add to that the fact (not opinion, fact) that ID would prevent almost no ballot fraud. This is a great example of why the proposed amendment should be defeated.

hecklesOct. 2, 12 9:56 AM

hmmmm...A State is already blocking this law?

ccbeanOct. 2, 12 9:57 AM

In most countries you need to carry proof of citizenship. If something happens to you or you are in an altercation with the law you need I.D and that I.D is usually a passport. Asking someone to have an I.D is wrong somehow?

Packman_1Oct. 2, 1210:00 AM

Good news for anyone who wants a fair election. Bad news for the GOP who know the only way they win is to disenfranchise as many voters as possible, as they did in Ohio in 2004.

ispacecowboyOct. 2, 1210:02 AM

It's obvious that democrats don't think they can win without cheating. It will be interesting to watch how election outcomes change over time as common sense voter ID requirements continue to be implemented across more states.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters