This short week, thus far, has been rather good for Democrats. So, rather than make a bunch of separate blog posts, I thought I would put forth a few of these things, and allow for some fantastic discussion.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to Voter ID.
From the decision of the Court:
[T]he Law contemplates that the primary form of photo identification to be used by voters is a Department of Transportation (PennDOT) driver’s license or the non-driver equivalent provided under Section 1510(b) of the Vehicle Code. Furthermore, the Law specifically requires that – notwithstanding provisions of Section 1510(b) relating to the issuance and content of the cards – PennDOT shall issue them at no cost . . . . As such, the Law establishes a policy of liberal access to Section 1510(b) identification cards.
However, as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT – apparently for good reason – has refused to allow such liberal access. Instead, the Department continues to vet applicants for Section 1510(b) cards through an identification process that Commonwealth officials appear to acknowledge is a rigorous one. Generally, the process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal (or a document considered to be an equivalent), a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency. The reason why PennDOT will not implement the Law as written is that the Section 1510(b) driver’s license equivalent is a secure form of identification, which may be used, for example, to board commercial aircraft.
The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms. . . . Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith.
From a purely legal perspective, this is not over, as the case is sent back to the lower court. But, to be sure, the lower court will be seriously pressed to find a way to keep this law on the books before voting begins.
…and, of course, the Romney/Ryan train just keeps derailing
But, just to parse that alleged 47%, let’s look at a few charts:
In summary, less than 18% of Americans pay neither income nor payroll tax, which is knocked down to a hefty 1% when you take out poor Americans (making less than $20,000/year) and elderly Americans (likely not making much beyond a fixed income). Take a look at the link above for the reasons that people pay neither sort of tax.
I expect to be updating this quite often.
Leave a Reply