Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Department of Justice is investigating whether Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law is discriminatory, according to a letter released Monday.
Specifically, the department is reviewing Pennsylvania Act No. 18 (2012), which establishes the requirement to show proof of identity to be able to vote, according to the document.
The Justice Department requested data on the state’s registered voters in an effort to analyze whether those who lack the proper identification are disproportionately minorities.
The move by the Justice Department could be a step toward a federal lawsuit under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Lawsuits against several others states for voter ID laws have already been filed.
Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified only some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country.
Read more: Justice Department opens investigation into Pennsylvania voter ID law | Fox News
Opens investigation into the voter reform law, in which is against the law abiding good citizen voters of PA and it's government there, but never investigates properly the Black Panther Debacle or made any proper judgements in that situation? GO FIGURE! It is the very reason that Obama has to go this November, because he cannot affectively run this nation in a non-biased way, because of those who expect him to be biased towards these things because of their color, and not because of being Americans along with every other American in which he is suppose to manage equally the country for properly in that way.The Department of Justice is investigating whether Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law is discriminatory, according to a letter released Monday.
Specifically, the department is reviewing Pennsylvania Act No. 18 (2012), which establishes the requirement to show proof of identity to be able to vote, according to the document.
The Justice Department requested data on the state’s registered voters in an effort to analyze whether those who lack the proper identification are disproportionately minorities.
The move by the Justice Department could be a step toward a federal lawsuit under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Lawsuits against several others states for voter ID laws have already been filed.
Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified only some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country.
Read more: Justice Department opens investigation into Pennsylvania voter ID law | Fox News
400 over a decade may not be a lot, but let's not pretend that anyone has been actively pursuing them.
And how many people on here claim there have been none?
The good ole DOJ, doing what they do best. Suing states. Kind of ironic that PA was the home of the Black Panther debacle. No shame...
* Article: Poll: Americans back voter ID laws
In this poll:
In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification -- such as a drivers license -- when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn't they have to do this? - The Washington Post
Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.
* Article: Poll: Americans back voter ID laws
In this poll:
In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification -- such as a drivers license -- when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn't they have to do this? - The Washington Post
Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.
Wow. I had no idea that 75% of the country were Republicans. And bigots.
* Article: Poll: Americans back voter ID laws
In this poll:
In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification -- such as a drivers license -- when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn't they have to do this? - The Washington Post
Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.
Wow. I had no idea that 75% of the country were Republicans. And bigots.
Interestingly enough, unions require id before you can vote. Aren't they mostly democratic? Why would they require id for votes in the union but have no problem with not having id to vote in our national election process?
The Courts disagree with you, to bad dumb ass, remind us how our legal system treats all mental patients as criminals, you must be being watched.The Republican dominated Pennsylvania legislature has enacted a law requiring voters to show a valid driver's license before they will be permitted to vote. Guess who this affects most in the two major, Pennsylvanisa cities.
Pennsylvania's strict voter ID law faces ACLU lawsuit - latimes.com
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are predominately Democratic cities. "If the election were held today, we would have more than 100,000 of our voters who could not vote," said Stephanie Singer, chairwoman of Philadelphia's elections commission. "It's a cynical attempt by the Republican leadership to steal the election. And absolutely it could sway the outcome."
The ACLU is challenging this law - and rightly so.
People have known for a long time this was coming...
So what did the majority of voters affected do for the most part....
Complained and did nothing.
Come the few weeks before election Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson
will hold a press conference claiming all sorts of racial nonsense and voter disenfranchisement.
When these folks could have just gotten their stuff together and voted...
But this is the Democrat party and they love to play the victim and cry foul...
Geeez.
Was traveling down a road today in which had a sidewalk running paralell to it or right beside it, when the next thing I saw or began to take notice of to my surprise, was these signs that were leading up to a small parking lot at a store location, but why I wondered ? As I got closer the signs were then read to say things like "register to vote here" and etc. The next thing I saw when got closer was a small table with two chairs sitting right on the sidewalk and right next to the very busy road many were traveling.People have known for a long time this was coming...
So what did the majority of voters affected do for the most part....
Complained and did nothing.
Come the few weeks before election Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson
will hold a press conference claiming all sorts of racial nonsense and voter disenfranchisement.
When these folks could have just gotten their stuff together and voted...
But this is the Democrat party and they love to play the victim and cry foul...
Geeez.
Why all this effort and non-sense over something that occurs only .0006th of the time?Voter ID objections miss the real need
Like many states concerned over election integrity, Pennsylvania passed a commonsense election reform: voter ID. As a result, it has been targeted in an ACLU lawsuit, threatened with litigation by the Holder Justice Department, and falsely accused of trying to suppress minority voters.
Voter ID can prevent impersonation fraud, voting under false registrations, double voting by individuals registered in more than one state, and voting by illegal aliens. Much has been made of the state's admission in the ACLU lawsuit that there have been no "prosecutions of in-person voter fraud." But as an appeals court said when it upheld Indiana's voter-ID law, "without requiring a photo ID," there is almost no chance of detecting such fraud.
Unfortunately, Pennsylvania has seen these other types of fraud.
In the 1970s in U.S. v. Cianciulli, the Justice Department prosecuted 25 defendants for using "false addresses" to register in Philadelphia. Many of the defendants "had never lived in, and in many cases had never set foot in, the residences" where they were registered. One couple voted in both Philadelphia and New Jersey. Having to produce Pennsylvania driver's licenses with their actual address could have prevented the fraud committed in this case.
The state law requires an ID not just for in-person voting, but for absentee ballots. Pennsylvania has experienced numerous instances of absentee ballot fraud that could have been deterred by this requirement. Consider, for example, the 1998 conviction of former U.S. Rep. Austin Murphy or the 1984 conviction of Bob A. Clapps, then the Democratic chairman of Luzerne County. Voters at the U.S. v. Clapps trial testified that "they never saw, marked, or mailed the ballots."
Mayor Nutter claims the state's voter-ID law was "a bad solution looking for a problem." Apparently he has forgotten the special state Senate election of 1993. A federal judge found that absentee ballot fraud in Philadelphia had changed the outcome of that election.
Beyond doubt, then, Pennsylvania has a rich history of voting fraud. But is the new voter-ID law too strict? Not by a long shot. It's less restrictive than Indiana's voter-ID law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.
Voter ID objections miss the real need - Philly.com
It's like the lottery, where as that odd could put a bad President into office, and all for the wrong agenda when put there.Why all this effort and non-sense over something that occurs only .0006th of the time?Voter ID objections miss the real need
Like many states concerned over election integrity, Pennsylvania passed a commonsense election reform: voter ID. As a result, it has been targeted in an ACLU lawsuit, threatened with litigation by the Holder Justice Department, and falsely accused of trying to suppress minority voters.
Voter ID can prevent impersonation fraud, voting under false registrations, double voting by individuals registered in more than one state, and voting by illegal aliens. Much has been made of the state's admission in the ACLU lawsuit that there have been no "prosecutions of in-person voter fraud." But as an appeals court said when it upheld Indiana's voter-ID law, "without requiring a photo ID," there is almost no chance of detecting such fraud.
Unfortunately, Pennsylvania has seen these other types of fraud.
In the 1970s in U.S. v. Cianciulli, the Justice Department prosecuted 25 defendants for using "false addresses" to register in Philadelphia. Many of the defendants "had never lived in, and in many cases had never set foot in, the residences" where they were registered. One couple voted in both Philadelphia and New Jersey. Having to produce Pennsylvania driver's licenses with their actual address could have prevented the fraud committed in this case.
The state law requires an ID not just for in-person voting, but for absentee ballots. Pennsylvania has experienced numerous instances of absentee ballot fraud that could have been deterred by this requirement. Consider, for example, the 1998 conviction of former U.S. Rep. Austin Murphy or the 1984 conviction of Bob A. Clapps, then the Democratic chairman of Luzerne County. Voters at the U.S. v. Clapps trial testified that "they never saw, marked, or mailed the ballots."
Mayor Nutter claims the state's voter-ID law was "a bad solution looking for a problem." Apparently he has forgotten the special state Senate election of 1993. A federal judge found that absentee ballot fraud in Philadelphia had changed the outcome of that election.
Beyond doubt, then, Pennsylvania has a rich history of voting fraud. But is the new voter-ID law too strict? Not by a long shot. It's less restrictive than Indiana's voter-ID law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.
Voter ID objections miss the real need - Philly.com
