Judge halts Pennsylvania voter ID law for the third Election
Comment0
newsone.com
August 17, 2013
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley,
has ruled that Pennsylvania's Voter ID law cannot be used in this
year's election. This is the third straight election since the law was
signed that IDs will not be required. The ACLU filed charges, saying
that the ID law was unfair to poor and minority voters.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008, that Voter ID laws were constitutional. That case in which the ACLU challenged Indiana's tough new Voter ID law was decided by a 6-3 vote. The court ruled that the state had an interest in making sure noneligible voters were not allowed to cast ballots.
The ACLU, NAACP, and the democratic party make the case that voter ID laws are a form of voter suppression. However, there has never been a dropoff in voters in states that have adopted a Voter ID, and many like Georgia and Mississippi have seen large increases in the number of minorities voting.
North Carolina is the latest state to pass a Voter ID law. The ACLU has filed suit to try to stop the law from being implimented by stating that voter fraud does not exist in North Carolina and requiring ID would hurt the poor who do not have photo IDs.
In 2010, in North Carolina, over 2600 people ages 110 or older voted. Citizen reporter, James O'Keefe found that illegal aliens were able to vote in North Carolina, by matching people who refused jury duty because they weren't citizens, who also voted in their elections. He also found that administrators at the University of North Carolina were willing to go along with voter fraud.
Proponents of the Voter ID laws also point out that the poor recieve food stamps, heat, and housing help, all which require a photo ID. Opponents say the fact that there is a photo ID requirement will keep them from going to the polls. No study has been done that lends credence to either position.
Both sides would like to see the Supreme Court rule definatively one way or another.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008, that Voter ID laws were constitutional. That case in which the ACLU challenged Indiana's tough new Voter ID law was decided by a 6-3 vote. The court ruled that the state had an interest in making sure noneligible voters were not allowed to cast ballots.
The ACLU, NAACP, and the democratic party make the case that voter ID laws are a form of voter suppression. However, there has never been a dropoff in voters in states that have adopted a Voter ID, and many like Georgia and Mississippi have seen large increases in the number of minorities voting.
North Carolina is the latest state to pass a Voter ID law. The ACLU has filed suit to try to stop the law from being implimented by stating that voter fraud does not exist in North Carolina and requiring ID would hurt the poor who do not have photo IDs.
In 2010, in North Carolina, over 2600 people ages 110 or older voted. Citizen reporter, James O'Keefe found that illegal aliens were able to vote in North Carolina, by matching people who refused jury duty because they weren't citizens, who also voted in their elections. He also found that administrators at the University of North Carolina were willing to go along with voter fraud.
Proponents of the Voter ID laws also point out that the poor recieve food stamps, heat, and housing help, all which require a photo ID. Opponents say the fact that there is a photo ID requirement will keep them from going to the polls. No study has been done that lends credence to either position.
Both sides would like to see the Supreme Court rule definatively one way or another.
