Proposed Voting Law Could Keep Nine Percent of Pennsylvanians Out of the Voting Booth

Monday, July 09, 2012

Although voting requirements are well defined in the Constitution, a new Pennsylvania voting law could prevent up to nine percent of the state’s population from voting this November. The GOP-supported law contends that Pennsylvanians must present a government issued photo ID in order to enter a voting booth. However, approximately 750,000 of the state’s citizens lack proper identification.

Democrats fear that this measure, which primarily affects liberal leaning, lower-class residents, could have disastrous effects on their presidential election prospects. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Republican House leader Mike Turzai was caught boasting last month that the law was going to cause Mitt Romney to win the swing state. University of North Carolina law professor Kareem Crayton provides a closer look at the law’s potential consequences.


Kareem Crayton

Produced by:

Ashley Wandishin

Comments [3]


Separation of powers is "s a pretty firmly-defined concept in the United States Constitution" yet doesn't seem to interest most members of the media at the moment.

Jul. 09 2012 03:45 PM

"The right to vote is a pretty firmly-defined concept in the United States Constitution..."

So Celeste Headlee begins this segment.

Funny, I had thought that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." was also a pretty firmly-defined concept in the United States Constitution. But Celeste seems to find that concept more challenging, when it comes to the funding of electioneering.

"Listener" has stated it very well. This was a deliberately-crafted one-sided discussion. Intended to advance a veiwpoint (voter i.d. laws are unneccessary, bad and perhaps even racist) and not intended to illuminate both sides of a debate.

Brad Smith, law professor at Capital University, or Hans von Spakovsky (former voting rights section counsel at the Justice Department and former FEC commissioner) are a couple of people whose numbers seem to have dropped out of The Takeaway's Rolodex.

Jul. 09 2012 11:34 AM

If there are so many outstanding questions than why not have a guest in favor of secure identity voting in the discussion to answer them....or is that the idea?

That uninvited guest may remind the audience that most industrial democracies around the world insist on producing an ID when voting. That is similar to this nation demanding an ID when getting on a plane, going into a bar, going in an office building, applying for a job, getting medical benefits ect, ect. without it being considered a rights violation.
An adult US citizen without ID is largely shut out of society so would it not benefit citizens to have a photo ID?

Why is requiring an ID to vote a civil rights violation but Obamacare legally demanding an ID at a doctor's office not a civil rights violation since we are told healthcare is a civil right?

Jul. 09 2012 08:03 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.