Nostalgic for Last Week’s America?

oathSo much of the America I had taken for granted as recently as last week has disappeared.

President Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” feels increasingly appropriate, leading many Americans wonder if Trump will really remain President for four years of will one of the many scandals swirling around him lead to his impeachment, or if Trump’s erratic behavior and plummeting popularity will lead his cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
[Read more…]

Defending Voters’ Rights in Pennsylvania: The Battle Is Not Over


A visit to a PennDOT office to secure a photo ID may be very difficult for the elderly and the poor, and as a result they may drop from the voters’ rolls.

— By Kenneth R. Myers, Esq.

Striking down the voter ID law was an important step in securing voters’ rights in Pennsylvania.

The well reasoned opinion of Judge Herman McGinley overturning the voter identification law takes effect subject to the high likelihood of an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That Court’s 2012 ruling withheld decision on the merits of the law, instead questioning the practical impact on voters. So there is no foretelling the result in the coming appeal.

Meanwhile, the next battle to defeat the wishes of the voting public is Governor Corbett’s proposal to award Pennsylvania’s electoral votes in presidential elections on the basis of the tally by Congressional district.  

More after the jump.
As a result of the very successful gerrymander of those districts, Republicans cast less than half the votes statewide yet elected 13 out of 18 of our state Congressional delegation in 2012. According to analysts, despite the fact that President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points in 2012, he probably would have won only 7 of the state’s 20 electoral votes if this vote rigging plan had been in effect.

The problem with the voter ID law is that many people, particularly the poor and the elderly, have no driver’s license. A visit to a PennDOT office to secure a photo ID may be very difficult for them, and as a result they may drop from the voters’ rolls.

The very detailed and careful opinion of Judge McGinley of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court permanently enjoined the voter identification law that has been challenged in court for almost two years.  

The primary thrust of this law is to require picture identification, such as a driver’s license, for any registered voter to be able to cast a ballot. This voter ID law is one of many adopted across the country, primarily by state legislatures with Republican majorities.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court received the case on motion to enjoin operation of the law temporarily, before any final trial on the merits. Acting just before the 2012 presidential election, the Court enjoined the law and sent the case back to Commonwealth Court to determine whether it places an illegal burden on the right to vote, particularly as regards people who cannot readily visit a PennDOT office to secure a photo ID.

At trial the plaintiffs presented calculations that as many as 400,000 Pennsylvania voters might find it difficult or practically impossible to qualify for the necessary photo ID. The Administration argued, in support of the law, that it is justified to address potential voter fraud. But no significant evidence of voter fraud was presented.  

Judge McGinley sifted through the many problems that would-be voters, are likely to have in trying to secure the necessary photo ID. Various efforts at curative patches put up by the Corbett Administration were rejected either as unsatisfactory to solve the problem, or as unauthorized under the law. The court ruled that the difficulties imposed on many citizens amounted to a deprivation of their right to vote.

Unfortunately, the battle against suppressing voters’ rights in Pennsylvania is not over.

Attorney Bonin Briefs JSPAN Board on Redistricting, Voter ID

(JSPAN) Attorney Adam C. Bonin presented an update on Pennsylvania election law to the Jewish Social Policy Action Network‘s Board of Directors at its regular meeting last month. Bonin focused on pending redistricting and voter identification litigation. Both issues are currently before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Bonin, a member of the JSPAN Board of Directors, provided an overview of the process by which redistricting is accomplished for state and federal elections in Pennsylvania, what role is played by the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission and which Constitutional provisions come into play. He also traced the history of litigation with respect to interpretations of key provisions of the state Constitution and explained how these likely may impact redistricting decisions currently before the Court.

More after the jump.
As Bonin explained, both cases involve sensitive legal as well as political questions, complicated by a current vacancy on the Supreme Court and the upcoming November 2014 general election. The lively discussion, aided by the participation of former State Representative (and JSPAN Board Member) Babette Josephs, went into great detail as to the ways in which maps can be tailored towards partisan ends.  

#1 Source Of Voter Fraud: James O’Keefe Wannabes

In New Mexico:

(TPM) On Tuesday in New Mexico, a Republican poll watcher was taken into police custody after also apparently trying to test the system. According to the Las Cruces Sun-News, the man voted, then obtained a second provisional ballot and announced he was simply “testing the system to see if people could get away with voting twice….”

“From what we understand, he was trained by the Republican Party,” Sandoval told TPM. The Grant County Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

In Nevada:

(TPM) In Nevada, 56-year-old Roxanne Rubin, a Republican, was arrested on Nov. 2 for allegedly trying to vote twice, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The newspaper quoted a report by an investigator with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office that said Rubin “was unhappy with the process; specifically in that her identification was not checked.”

Rubin allegedly voted at one polling location in Henderson, Nev. on Oct. 29 and then went to another voting location in Las Vegas to try to vote again. Poll workers told her records indicated she had already voted, but Rubin allegedly told them she hadn’t. A poll worker reportedly overheard Rubin tell another man that she had “signed my name differently, and they did not ask for ID.” She was arrested at the Riviera Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and charged with a category “D” felony.

Discussion on Voter ID Laws in Pennsylvania

A panel discussion about voter ID laws in Pennsylvania took place at the Liberties Bar and Restaurant, in Philadelphia’s Northern Liberties area. The discussion was sponsored by the Philadelphia chapter of the Jewish labor Committee (JLC) in collaboration with the Philadelphia AFL-CIO, the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW), and the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC).

Referring to the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision suspending provisions of the voter ID law, Hornstein said, “We’re going to pivot the energy from making sure everyone has the proper ID, which is of course what the right-wing wanted us to be focused on, to actually getting out the vote.

More after the jump.
“The Jewish Labor Committee,” added Hornstein, “is really about building bridges between the Labor community and the Jewish community. Back in my grandmother’s day, Jews and Labor were synonymous. Nowadays, except for teachers and some classifications of work, Jews are now highly represented in the Labor movement, except on staffs. We feel it’s important, because the Jewish community is generally a progressive community, and generally in tune with what the Labor movement does, if they knew what was going on.”

Hornstein introduced the panel: Laura Wentz, Executive Vice-President of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and member of IATSE Local 8; Elizabeth McElroy, Secretary-Treasurer of the Philadelphia AFL-CIO; State Senator Daylin Leach; and Anne Gemmell, Political Director of Fight for Philly.

Fighting the voter ID bills was, as Dalyin Leach put it, “in the last few months my full-time job…One of my most recent experiences was debating (House Republican Leader) Mike Turzai on Fox News.” Leach described Turzai as “just out of it, reading notes and talking to people off camera during the debate.”

Judge Robert Simpson, added Leach, “was not considering the constitutionality of voter ID, as was often misrepresented in the press. Judge Simpson was considering the preliminary injunction, (and) to grant a preliminary injunction, you are not required to find that a law in unconstitutional, all you have to find is that there is a reasonable likelihood (that there is) a strong case that it’s unconstitutional.” The State Supreme Court said, added Leach, that “in order for this law to survive for the 2012 election, the judge had (to hold) another hearing and find, as a factual matter, that everyone in Pennsylvania who wanted an ID could feasibly get an ID.”

Pointing out that many of the 71 offices of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) were only open one day a week, Leach said, “If you take the total number of PennDOT hours, and the total number of people that need these IDs, every PennDOT office would essentially have to give out a thousand IDs a day. If a thousand people showed up to a PennDOT office, 970 of them would be sent home.”

Of the claim that the voter ID bills were designed to eliminate voter fraud, Leach said, “Any remedy you craft has to be in response to an actual problem. In-person voter fraud is not an actual problem, in that it never happens…People tend not to commit extremely high-risk, no-reward crimes-that’s just human nature.” Leach also raised the danger of “fistfights as polls, as people who voted for fifty years showed up at the polls show up and the person who’s been signing them in for fifty years told them they couldn’t vote- that’s going to get very ugly. There’s going to be people challenging every single ID at certain polls, and that will create long lines and (they will) hope that people go away without voting.”

Ann Gemmell pointed out the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where “they sit around and create model legislation, and as soon as they get total control of a state house and senate, they start flying this legislation in, and it happened in Pennsylvania.’ Gemmell said that progressive have been “spending a lot of time and energy that could be spent on talking about Kathy Kane (running for Pennsylvania Attorney General) and registering voters.”

Liz McElroy reminded people that “Before 2006, no state had a law in their books for photo ID every time somebody voted. Today, now, at least thirty (states) do. That’s not an accident, if you think about what happened in those intervening six years in this country.” There are many people, said McElroy, “who think, what’s the big deal about voter ID? You need a (driver’s) license to but cigarettes, you need a license to buy beer, all these things you need ID to do. It’s not necessarily crazy right-wing people who are saying this, it’s our friends, neighbors, and union members.

“It’s a big deal because,” said McElroy, “it’s not my right to get on an airplane, (but) it’s my right to go into the voting booth and vote, so they’re very different things. It’s not my right to buy cigarettes or beer, but it’s my right to walk into a voting booth.” In the years from 2006, she added, “We’ve seen a relentless attack on workers, on teachers, on public employees- I’m not just talking union workers, (but on) all workers.” Companies, she said, want to “completely cut workers’ benefits and pay, and exploit them. You’ve got to work more hours for less money, (or) we’ll ship your job to China. That conversation has been around for a long time…The same people who are coming after us as workers, or as women (attacking) our reproductive rights, or as Gays and Lesbians, whatever category, they’re the same people who are going after our voting rights. It’s all tied together, and it’s really one of those issues that, truly, we’re all in it together.”  

Reactions to PA Court’s Voter ID Decision

The Commonwealth Court has delayed implementation of the Voter ID law. Voters will be asked to show voter ID in November as they were in the primary, but they will be allowed to vote even if they do not have ID.

This decision will hopefully allow more Pennsylvanians to exercise their right to vote. In order to make sure this become a reality please remember to register to vote. Voter registration forms are due this weekend at the County Bureau of Elections.

Following the jump are some reactions to the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
Obama for America Pennsylvania Senior Advisor for Communications Desiree Peterkin-Bell

“Today’s decision means one thing for Pennsylvanians: eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state.

“The right to vote and choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be an American. The President and his campaign are committed to making sure that every eligible voter, regardless of party, has the ability to make their voices heard and participate in the electoral process.

“We encourage voters who have questions about voting to call our toll free Voter Hotline at 855-834-VOTE (8683) and to register by next Tuesday’s deadline, October 9. Regardless of party affiliation, we support ensuring any voter eligible to cast a ballot has the right to do so.”

Will Crossley, DNC Counsel & Director of Voter Protection

Today, we achieved another significant victory in our historic efforts to protect the right to vote when a Pennsylvania judge blocked implementation of the state’s restrictive voter ID law for this year’s presidential election.

The Pennsylvania voter ID law was one of the most onerous in the nation. It imposed heavy burdens on tens of thousands of Pennsylvania voters who lacked the particular kind of photo ID specified in the legislation. The court concluded the state had failed to establish procedures to cure deficiencies in access to new photo IDs, and predicted that implementation of the law would result in the disenfranchisement of eligible Pennsylvania voters.

As a result of the judge’s ruling, all eligible voters of the commonwealth will be able to exercise their fundamental right to vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections.

Democrats and voting rights advocates have now scored several major victories in voting rights cases-not only in Pennsylvania, but also in states like Florida,Iowa, and New Hampshire. We remain committed to making sure that every eligible voter has the ability to make their voice heard regardless of political party.

Though we celebrate these victories, there is still much work to do. In the weeks ahead, we must ensure that all voters know how to participate, and can access the ballot box on November 6. For more information on how to vote in your state, go to www.gottavote.com today.

State Rep. Babette Josephs

In the wake of Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson’s temporary injunction against requiring Pennsylvania voters to show a current, valid government-issued photo ID, state Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Phila., is hopeful that a more permanent ruling is applied.

“With his first ruling, Judge Simpson abdicated his judicial responsibility in the hope that someone else would make the decision for him on this controversial law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then did the same by sending the case back to the lower court. It took a second try, but Judge Simpson finally acted, and I’m glad of the result,” Josephs said.

Under the ruling, the same rules that were in effect for the primary election will be in effect for the Nov. 6 election, meaning that election workers will ask to see valid photo ID, but if voters do not have it, they still will be allowed to vote – and not by a provisional ballot as required by the law: they can vote in the booth.

“There are international implications to today’s decision, as well as domestic ones,” Josephs said. “America is the world’s most powerful democracy, and the hallmark of democracy is voting. We’re known for our universal suffrage and other countries look up to us. Today’s ruling reaffirms that government will stand up for its voters, despite those who intended the law to suppress the vote.”

As an example, Josephs pointed to the law’s sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who said last month that anyone who fails to obtain a photo ID for voting was lazy.

“It is bad enough that countless news stories have documented people’s difficulties, frustrations and inability to obtain photo identification for voting, but then to have the prime sponsor of the law call those hardworking, responsible Pennsylvania citizens ‘lazy,’ shows nothing except how much disdain Mr. Metcalfe has for ordinary, hardworking people. Citizens have documented hours, even days devoted to obtaining necessary paperwork, and not all of them have been successful in spite of their strenuous efforts,” Josephs said.

Josephs also is optimistic that the Supreme Court will uphold the injunction on the expected appeal.

“Judge Simpson was acting on the court’s instructions, so it would seem that the Supreme Court will not find fault with that.”

Additionally, Josephs said she believes it is well past time for the Department of State to pull its voter ID commercial from the airwaves.

“This commercial has offended people from the moment it was put on air,” she said. “It calls into question people’s patriotism and their constitutional right to vote, instead of clearly explaining the new voter ID law. Now the law has been stopped for November, but the advertisements might give some voters the impression that they still must have photo ID in order to cast their ballots. Unless this is the first time you have voted in this particular polling place, you need only sign the poll book, and go into the voting booth. I want the State Department to stop confusing the Pennsylvania citizens immediately.”
 

Double Billing: Paying For What Someone’s Already Paid To Do

Israel

Yesterday, Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, was acquitted on double billing charges as not proven:

On trial for the last two years, Olmert was accused of allegedly paying for family vacations by double billing Jewish organizations through the Rishon Tours travel agency; allegedly accepting envelopes full of cash from American businessman Morris Talansky; and allegedly granting personal favors to attorney Uri Messer when he served as trade minister in the Investment Center case. The charges were filed after he became prime minister in 2006, but covered his time as mayor of Jerusalem and later as a government minister.

According to DEBKA, “The verdict read out by Presiding Judge Moussia Arad said there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he accepted illegal moneys systematically and deliberately, only that he acted in an improper manner.”

Pennsylvania

However, at the same time, Pennsylvania Corbett has decided to award a $249,660 contract to the Republican lobbying group, Bravo Group, to “educate” Pennsylvanians about the Commonwealth controversial, restrictive, new voter ID law. The Bravo Group is the work of Republican lobbyist Chris Bravacos who used to be the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Republican party. Bravacos has personally donated $27,400 to the Romney campaign.

This taxpayer-funded money was intended for actual voter education, but will instead be used to create advertisements that will attempt to gloss over how many legal voters will be disenfranchised by this law. Indeed, two weeks ago Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said that his Voter ID bill would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Corbett defends the Voter ID law on the hollow pretense that it prevents voter fraud, but when Corbett was Pennsylvania Attorney General he did not pursue a single case of voter fraud.

Imagine what the conservative uproar would be if President Obama were to award a federal grant to MoveOn.org to advocate for the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).

As US Attorney General Eric Holder said today before the NAACP,

Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would be acceptable forms of photo ID, but student IDs would not. Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes.

Isn’t paying a conservative lobbyist to advocate for a Republican voter supression effort the very definition of double billing?

Sample ads pulled from the Bravo Group’s vimeo channel follow the jump.
Video 1:
Dramatic music over pictures, including one of three suffragettes.

Video 2:
Video of overly happy people showing a card that is supposed to resemble an ID.  Also confuses the issue by saying “other kind of photo id” will be accepted, without explaining what that means.

Voter ID law proving costly


House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) told the Republican State Committee that Voter ID will allow Romney to win PA.

— by Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs

The new voter ID law is proving costly for both the Commonwealth and Republicans. First, the Department of State announces it will spend $5 million to ‘educate’ citizens on voter ID and then House Republican Leader Mike Turzai admits that voter ID was enacted to help out Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years:
  • Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done.
  • First pro-life legislation — abortion facility regulations — in 22 years, done.
  • Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.

Thousands of people are being forced to greatly inconvenience themselves and waste time their time and money to get the proper identification in order to vote. We warned that all of this would happen. Now it is. How much more proof is needed that voter ID is bad for Pennsylvania?

When the law was being considered by the General Assembly, Republican fiscal analyses estimated that its cost of outreach could easily be absorbed by the $3.8 million in federal Help America Vote Act funds held by the Department of State. However, the department recently announced that it was planning to spend $5 million on robocalls and other public outreach tools.

More after the jump.

I’m not questioning the need for and importance of outreach, but the Commonwealth is planning to spend at least $1.2 million more than what Republicans said was needed. That doesn’t take into account additional outreach that might be necessary or what the state Transportation Department is spending to provide free IDs. The Democrats said that some $11 million would have to be spent year in and year out, and it seems we were right. But this is an enormous leap into fiscal irresponsibility by the Corbett administration and the Republican majority in general.

In the face of important people needs like a job or quality education for their children, clean air and safe drinking water, treatment for behavioral diseases and physical conditions, law enforcement and public safety, not to mention support for the poor, the hungry and the vulnerable, spending this money to fix a political problem that is facing Republicans is unconscionable. It is clear to me that the Corbett administration fears the lawsuit brought by the NAACP, the ACLU and others. They want to prove the allegations are wrong, but Mr. Turzai, their House majority leader, has undercut their efforts with a single sentence. He said publicly what the law’s opponents have been saying all along — that this is just a voter suppression bill and a way to keep the citizens who vote Democratic away from the polls.

I don’t believe the Republican majority will be successful in bamboozling the court or undermining the state constitution. The more people who participate in the election process, the better the outcome. I believe that through the judicial system and the voices of the citizens, democracy will be restored to Pennsylvania and we will see what the citizens really want when all the votes are cast in November and beyond.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: The Lawsuit

Even A Ketubah Won’t Help A 91-Year Old Disenfranchised Jewish Grandmother

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,

Det Ansinn, the Borough Council president in Doylestown, told of taking his wife’s 91-year-old grandmother to a PennDot office, looking for a photo ID so she could keep her 70-year voting record intact.

Joyce Block of Doylestown Township is such a dedicated voter that Ansinn took her from the hospital in a wheelchair to vote in 2010 because she couldn’t get an absentee ballot.

She has an old voter registration card with her married name, but she has never had a driver’s license.

Block had all the documents on the Department of State checklist – birth certificate and Social Security card, both with her maiden name; her marriage certificate; deed to her house; Peco bills; plus her IRS refund check. That wasn’t enough to satisfy PennDot, Ansinn said.

Her Hebrew marriage license was rejected because the PennDot worker couldn’t read Hebrew, and the deed and Peco bill were rejected because they had her married name, not her maiden name.

The state worker suggested she take legal action to switch the ownership of her home to her maiden name, which she hasn’t used in 60 years. Then, maybe, she will be allowed to vote in the November election.

“This is absurd,” Block’s daughter, Randee Block, said at the meeting.

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch  From the ACLU Press Release:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Advancement  Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP), and  the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP filed a lawsuit  today on behalf of ten Pennsylvania voters and three prominent advocacy  organizations, alleging that the state's voter photo ID law violates the  Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most  fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. The plaintiffs are  asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an injunction blocking  enforcement of the law before November's election. If the law is not  overturned, most of the plaintiffs will be unable to cast ballots in the  fall, despite the fact that many of them have voted regularly for  decades.

You can see bios of the plaintiffs here. The lead plaintiff is Viviette Applewhite, shown in the video above. She is 93 and lives in Philadelphia. She had an ID card, but it was in her purse and the purse was stolen. This is her official bio:

Ms. Applewhite is an African-American woman born in 1919 in  Philadelphia. Ms. Applewhite worked as a welder during World War II in  the Sun Shipyard in Chester, Pennsylvania. Ms. Applewhite married and  raised a daughter who for decades worked for various federal,  Pennsylvania, and municipal government agencies. Now a widow, Ms.  Applewhite has lived in Philadelphia for more than twenty years and  enjoys five grandchildren, nine great grandchildren, and four  great-great grandchildren. She has voted in nearly every election since  at least 1960. Ms. Applewhite marched to support civil rights for  African-Americans with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Macon, Georgia,  and traveled on several occasions to hear him preach in Atlanta's  Ebeneezer Baptist Church. Ms. Applewhite does not have and has been  unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania's voter  photo ID law and thus after voting at nearly every election for more  than 50 years will be unable to cast a ballot this November.


Special shout out to Marian Schneider, one of the lawyers at the Advancement Project, who has been working for fair and clean elections all the years I've known her. From the Advancement Project:

The lawsuit claims that the voter photo ID law imposes a severe  burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of Article I  section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states that,
“Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military,  shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of  suffrage.”

It also alleges that the ID requirement illegally adds a  new qualification for voting.  Article VII section 1 of the state  constitution only requires that people be 18 years of age, U.S.  citizens, and residents of Pennsylvania and their voting district.

Finally, the suit claims that the voter photo ID law irrationally  distinguishes between in-person and absentee voters because the latter  can vote without photo ID (just writing down the last four digits of the  Social Security number).  Pennsylvania allows people to vote absentee  only if they can demonstrate an impossibility of getting to the polls on  Election Day.  While in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent,  there have been far more reports of absentee ballot fraud across the  country, yet under Pennsylvania’s law this form of voting is exempt from  the photo ID requirement.

Lawyers for the petitioners filed a motion for preliminary injunction  with the court, asking for expedited discovery and a trial date in June  in order to allow the Commonwealth Court to decide the case in  sufficient time to permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review the  decision in advance of November’s election.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the law triumphs over the racism and cupidity that reigns amoungst the GOP in Harrisburg.

Why Is This ID Different From All The Other ID’s?



One of these ID cards is different from all of the others.

All of these ID cards except one are acceptable forms of identification according to the new Pennsylvania Voter ID law. Which one is it and why?

  • Drexel University student ID
  • University of Pennsylvania student ID
  • Pennsylvania Driver’s License
  • Canadian Gun Permit
  • New York State Driver’s License
  • United States Passport

Check your answer after the jump.
Answer: The Drexel Student ID is not acceptable even though we accept ID cards from the neighboring campus of the University of Pennsylvania.

We accept various ID’s from other states and even other countries, so why is Drexel’s Student ID unacceptable?

The ID card is required to have an expiration date. Drexel like many universities do not specify an expiration date since they do not know how many years the student will be on campus. An issue date is not sufficient.

If only Drexel had written “Expires: 12/31/2112” on the theory that no one is likely to study for more than a 100 years, then the ID card would be considered acceptable. Such an arbitrary distinction reveals the true motivation behind the law.

Republicans claim the Voter ID law is necessary to combat voter fraud, but voter impersonation is a virtually non-existent crime.

The Voter ID is purposely confusing and has been crafted not to combat fraud but rather to suppress voter turnout in certain groups: such as students, the unemployed and the elderly.