upyernoz of Rubber Hose, who is an attorney, explains his own confusion about the meaning of the judge's ruling. (See previous post.) The crux of the question is whether a voter lacking suitable ID is given a regular ballot or a provisional ballot. If you remember past elections, when individuals were forced to vote on provisional ballots, those ballots often ended up not being counted. So it's possible the judge ruled as a Republican instead of as a fiduciary of the tradition of law that one might expect a judge to be.
If even attorneys are confused by the ruling, the judge should issue a clarification RIGHT NOW. And the substance of the clarification had better be that everyone gets to vote on a regular ballot. Anything less is unacceptable. Anything less is evidence that the GOP is trying to turn Pennsylvania 2012 into Florida 2000.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
4 comments:
USING THIS PAGE TO LEAVE A COMMENT
• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
hey, my post was written just after the ruling had come out, when i only had time to skim the text and read the conclusion section. now i'm much more certain that voters get a regular (not provisional) ballot. but i still think there will be endless confusion on election day as the GOP has been flooding the airwaves of this state with PSAs talking about how you need an ID to vote now, and because under the ruling poll workers can still ask for an ID when people show up to vote. they just can't deny anyone the vote if they don't have an ID. this is sure to create a ton of confusion on election day. its not even clear if the poll workers will know the law (the voter ID law was not in effect for the primaries and yet many of the people working the polls had seen the public service announcements and thought that it was. a friend of mine who did election protection work at the polls witnessed people being turned away for not having an ID even though that was not the rule at the time)
ReplyDelete'noz, I understand the circumstances of your post; my post on the ruling was done while I had two utterly conflicting news articles staring me in the face. My mentioning your confusion was just by way of saying, "if a high-powered attorney, writing about his own turf, has difficulty interpreting the ruling clearly, surely the ruling itself must be faulty in its construction."
DeleteIt is increasingly clear that the GOP's last best hope of taking the White House is cheating in the election itself. I regard voting as almost a sacred act, and deliberate denial of the right to vote as a crime of the highest order. We let the (bleep!)s get away with stealing the year 2000 presidential election. Considering the likely economic consequences of a Rmoney presidency (legitimate or stolen), I think we may see pitchforks and torches in the street if the GOP steals this one.
that may be the first time anyone has ever called me "high-powered"
Deletei'm more like a young scrappy union attorney in a very small law firm. (and thats assuming i can still call myself a young attorney when i'm in my 40s. there are now attorneys who are 17 years younger than me!)
'noz, a "young scrappy union attorney" ranks very high in my estimation, and as I am 64, I see 40 as the prime of youth! :-) Enjoy it!
DeleteI just retired last year in good standing from AFM 65-699 mainly because my medical condition does not permit me to continue performing at a professional level (and I'm damned if I'll settle for less). Some anonymous (to me) "young scrappy union attorney" did well by Houston's musicians and their union a number of times in my career, some of those times memorable. Don't underestimate yourself or your role!