cheapbag214s
Joined: 27 Jun 2013
Posts: 18472
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
Location: England
|
 Posted: Fri 11:51, 02 Aug 2013 Post subject: The parties stipulated as follows |
|
|
to a vote at a polling place is in fact a registered elector and the personthat he purports to be,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and to ensure that the public has confidence in theelectoral process. The requirement of a photo ID is a tool to detect and detervoter fraud.How bad is the election fraud that Act 18 is designed to end? How bad is the problem the new law seeks to solve by burdening legitimate Pennsylvania voters? What is the scope of the fraud which the measure seeks to "detect and deter" by forcing valid voters to get new forms of identification? It simply doesn't exist -- a point Pennsylvania was forced to concede at trial and which Judge Simpson acknowledged in his ruling. "The parties stipulated as follows," the judge wrote:Therehave been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania;and the parties have no direct personal knowledge of any such investigations orprosecutions in other states...The parties are not aware of any incidents ofin-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and
The post has been approved 0 times
|
|
