There's been much publicity about the Pennsylvania voter ID law that has been estimated to disenfranchise as many as 600,000 legitimate voters in the state. Similar laws in other states will have the same effect, notably Florida, one of the most important swing states.
In PA, there is a lawsuit challenging the law. Now news comes pf the pre-trial "stipulation agreement," which I think means something that both sides agree as fact so they don't have to spend time at trial proving it.
The significant thing in this agreement is that the state has stipulated that it has no evidence that in person voter fraud has in fact ever taken place in Pennsylvania nor is it likely to occur in the November election even without the voter ID law.
So what, please tell, is this law all about? Proponents chirp about "protecting the sanctity" of the vote, how unAmerican it is for illegal aliens to try to vote, etc.
But with the terribly negative effect of the law on voter participation and the negligible, at best, improvement of voting purity with the law -- why are they pushing it?
Of course, there is no reason other than trying to suppress the number of people who are likely to vote Democratic.
It sounds like they're no longer even going to pretend otherwise.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The hearings in this trial have begun. It's quite possible that the judge might at least put this law on hold until after the November election, if not overturn it altogether.
ReplyDeleteI can't see how it could go the other way. The state apparently has no evidence to show a compelling reason to disadvantage voters this way, for which there is evidence.
It's been reported that as many as 20% of voters in the city of Philadelphia do not have the required photo ID.
That could very well give the state to Romney -- which of course is the motive behind this whole thing.