Comments:Pennsylvania courts to decide on controversial voter ID law

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
I see no problem with this!116:15, 24 September 2012
Typical021:09, 22 September 2012

I see no problem with this!

I not from Pennsylvania but I'm from a state going through the same thing! Voter fraud is real no matter what state you live in! If this makes it harder for fraud to occur then I support it one hundred percent! I don't want someone cancelling my vote out when they shouldn't be voting in the first place. (talk)15:45, 24 September 2012

There's a difference between taking reasonable steps to tackle voter fraud, and disenfranchising people who may-well not vote as you would hope.

The timing of this move to require a very constrained set of ID for voting is, quite obviously, aimed at disenfranchising. Had it been introduced 18 months ago, thus allowing a reasonable time for people to obtain the required ID, it would be a legitimate move.

Brian McNeil / talk16:15, 24 September 2012

Typical Republican voter schemes trying to steal elections since its the only way they can ever win. (talk)21:09, 22 September 2012