Post a reply to
Stop Whining About 'Racist' Voter ID and Get Granny to the Polls
freeandequalpa in Pennsylvania
Friday, July 20, 2012 at 6:10 AM
Post a reply to
The Right Opinion
-
Two Pandering Poseurs at the Final Senate debate
-
Headwinds for Obama
-
Government's War
-
De Facto Allies in Syria's Civil War: Obama, McCain, al-Qaida
-
The Amnesty Mob vs. America
-
Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
-
America Loses the War on Terror
-
Unasked and Unanswered Questions
-
Snowden a Fool, Not a Spy
-
The Red Line to Damascus
-
The President's Ghastly Gun Gaffe
-
Josh Duggar Accepts a New Role at FRC Action
- More Opinion
Policy and Analysis
Our Mission
The Patriot Post's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
1) The state of Pennsylvania admitted in a filing it submitted in the lawsuit challenging the PA Photo ID law that there is no evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the only kind of fraud laws requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls can prevent (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ApplewhiteStipulation.pdf).
2) The Court did not hold that photo ID laws are per se Constitutional, but rather held that the plaintiffs who challenged the Indiana photo ID law had not come forward with enough evidence to show that the law violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia highlighted that in his concurring opinion: "The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law 'may have imposed a special burden on' some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny." So if different plaintiffs came forward with solid evidence on the burden issue in some future case, the Court could easily reach the opposite conclusion. Also, Crawford will not apply to the lawsuit challenging the PA Photo ID Law. The plaintiffs in the PA case have alleged only violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, not the federal Constitution. A case holding that Indiana's photo ID law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution is irrelevant to a case challenging the PA photo ID law as violative of the PA Constitution. Here's another way to look at it -- the US Supreme Court will lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the PA Supreme Court's final judgment in the PA case because the suit alleges no violation of federal law.
3) O'Keefe's attempted impersonation of Holder did not prove that voter impersonation fraud ever actually happens -- only that it theoretically COULD happen. Also note that the imposter refused to sign for Holder's ballot, so the poll worker never had the opportunity to check the imposter's signature against Holder's authorized signature in the poll book. In other words, O'Keefe did not actually test the existing security precautions built in to the system, thereby proving nothing.