Pa. voter-ID plaintiff finally gets card
Source: Seattle Times
The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter-identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a state Department of Transportation office and was issued the photo-ID card she needs to vote.
<snip>
The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
But Thursday, she got it anyway. "You just have to keep trying," said Applewhite, who uses an electric wheelchair. "Don't give up."
<snip>
State officials called it an unplanned exercise in what they've been saying for weeks: Clerks at Pennsylvania Department of Transportation centers can take age and other factors into consideration when granting exceptions to the list of documents the law requires, licensing-bureau director Janet Dolan said.
Read more: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018941423_voterid18.html
What this means to me is that they've granted an exception that probably won't be given to most people in that situation, and now at the next appeal hearing the whole case will be thrown out because the plaintiff no longer has "standing"
SunSeeker
(51,986 posts)Wait, so your right to vote is dependent on the whims of a registration clerk, short of raising a stink in the media? WTF? Clearly the clerk did not exercise his/her discretion correctly the first time. What's to stop more BS like this?!
LeighAnn
(2,446 posts)There are other plaintiffs in this case... bet they all get quick, unexplained exceptions, too
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm
lobodons
(1,290 posts)999,999 to go.
MADem
(135,425 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)methodman
(23 posts)During certain decades certain countries were not liked in certain states so the immigrants many times changed their names to a more favorable country spelling. This is real. How do you account for that?
The Last Democrat
(73 posts)have done is to extend the time to get the voter identification, say for a year
.giving everyone time to get what is need to comply with the new law and being eligible to vote if so desired. But, as we all know the voter-identification law is not about voting or fraud.
Do they think, giving the lead plaintiff in the suit which was seeking to block the law, the required identification is going to make this go away
..i dont think so. They are just trying to make it appear it can be done and will now be the votes fault if that dont have the ID.
Not enough time should have been giving at least a year to do this.