We have a twofer here...some news and an excellent example of biased media masquerading as straight news, courtesy of the Associated Press new wire.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson refused to grant an injunction that would have halted Pennsylvania's new voter ID law, which requires each voter to show a valid photo ID.
The AP described that as 'a tough new voter identification law championed by Republicans.'
Of course, they don't identify exactly what's so tough about requiring a photo ID to vote, something you can't even cash a check or fill a prescription at most pharmacies without showing.
It gets better:
The Republican-penned law — which passed over the objections of Democrats — has ignited a furious debate over voting rights as Pennsylvania is poised to play a key role in deciding the presidential contest. Plaintiffs, including a 93-year-old woman who recalled marching with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1960, had asked Simpson to block the law from taking effect in this year's election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.
Riddle me this..did you ever read or hear Obama Care or the so-called stimulus being described as 'a Democrat-penned law' passed over the objections of Republicans? And the subtle touch of gratuitously adding a 93-year-old woman who 'recalled marching with Martin Luther King Jr.' is just too rich.
Republicans defend the law as necessary to protect the integrity of the election. But Democrats say the law will make it harder for people who lack ID for valid reasons to vote.
And what valid reasons could that be? My mother is 80, hasn't driven in years, uses a walker and qualifies financially to get her photo-ID for free.She not only gets free transpo to the DMV to obtain it via taxi coupons and metro access ( assuming I'm not available to drive her) but they have special windows and expedited appointments for seniors and the disabled, mandated by the the Americans with Disabilities Act.
They also identify Judge Simpson as a Republican, something that hardly ever gets done if the judge is a Democrat. I knw, because whenever a questionable, partisan ruling comes along, the first thing I research is who appointed the judge.
So now, we have the subtext of a heartless, right wing Republican Judge trying to keep black people from exercising their civil rights!
In his written opinion, Simpson said the plaintiffs "did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," but he said he that sympathy had no bearing on the merits of the law. He wrote that he believed state officials and agencies were actively resolving problems with the law and that they would carry it out in a "nonpartisan, even-handed manner."
Further, he characterized the law as neutral, nondiscriminatory and applying uniformly to all voters. Speculation about the possible problems in issuing valid photo IDs or confusion on Election Day did not warrant "invalidation of all lawful applications" of it.
The old law was voter fraud heaven. It allowed people to vote with a bank statement or a utility bill as ID, something any illegal alien or felon could easily obtain. For that matter, a single bank statement or electric bill can also be passed around to quite a few people.And if necessary, you could even borrow an old one from someone who was deceased, but still on the rolls.
And in fact, Pennsylvania is taking some extraordinary steps to make sure no one who really wants to vote and needs an ID gets one.
The state is planning to begin issuing a special photo ID card for registered voters who are unable to get a PennDOT-issued ID and lack other acceptable photo IDs, such as passports or active-duty military IDs.
In addition, the state is rolling out a public relations campaign at taxpayer expense to make people aware of the law.
Needless to say, Democrats are going to take this to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, which is split evenly between Republican and Democrat appointees. And if that fails, There's always Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice, which refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther party in Philadelphia for an open and shut case of voter intimidation, but are eagerly looking at the law and have already requested a long list of information about it.
The Pennsylvania law, by the way, mirrors the Indianan voter ID law which the Supreme Court already ruled was constitutional and in compliance with federal laws.
But the idea, of course, is to hold things up in the courts until after November.
Felons, illegal aliens and the dead...they're an important and necessary Democrat constituency, and they can't win elections without them.