It's becoming increasingly clear that last year's Republican-backed voter identification measure in Pennsylvania disenfranchised minorities and undermined the Democratic vote.Pennsylvania'sGOP chairman Rob Gleason told a local TV station this week that voter ID had helped to "cut [votes for] Obama by 5%" in the 2012 presidential election.
His statement came just over a year after Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai admitted that voter ID efforts were intended to suppress Democratic votes, telling a Republican Steering Committee meeting that voter ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
why did it take so long for them to admit what was obviously in plain sight all over the media, is it like their insane attempts to keep doing something again and again waiting for a different ending?
Last year, Republican legislators in Pennsylvania tried to put in place a controversial voter ID law before the 2012 presidential election. Arguing that the proposed law would unfairly disenfranchise minority and Democratic voters, the ACLU spearheaded a high-profile legal challenge. Although the law was never enforced, misinformation about the constantly-changing voting procedure likely decreased Democratic turnout at the polls.Pennsylvania's voter ID requirement had been banished to legal limbo until July 15, when the state Supreme Court began to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the measure.Part of the problem, plaintiffs in the case alleged, was that the state's multimedia campaign to educate voters about the new ID law only served to confuse residents. Pennsylvania TV networks ran ads in which people holding up ID cards told voters to "show it."
again the guy was on national tv saying voter id would give Romney the win he just left out the blocking part.
A lot of important questions have emerged during the course of the court's scrutiny of the law. The plaintiffs in the case also question whether the voter ID measure was actually necessary in the first place. In court, lawyers for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were forced to abandon the argument that the measure was necessary to prevent misconduct on Election Day after they couldn't point to any specific instances of voter fraud.Studies have shown that voter fraud in the U.S. is incredibly rare. One study by the Brennan Center for Justice found a fraud rate of 0.0002% in Wisconsin during the 2004 election after the Republican National Committee Chairman claimed that Wisconsin was "absolutely riddled with voter fraud.” In most cases, a voter is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud at the polls.
America and the world watching is this not enough evidence for the SCOTUS to recind there strike down of their blind at least 5 of them eye focusing on what is in every form of media since they started it, is our SCOTUS in sequestration even if so, the Fla jury got to live better than they did in their real lives access to all media and guest was the room service on Fla. as a payoff for that verdict?
