What is the most bizarre about this is the bald-faced statement in the lawsuit that “The Commonwealth has no compelling interest in limiting political speech in this fashion.” This is saying explicitly that their purpose is political and not neutral to prevent fraud.
And here I thought (Pa) House Majority Leader Mike Turzai’s 2012 bragging that “Voter ID […] is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania” was as brazen as they could get. How naive.
I did not think that in 2016, any state, and particularly a northern state, would both try to pass a bill, and also submit a Federal legal challenge to their State’s constitution, in order to be allowed to bring in gangs from all over the state into their largest city, specifically and openly to intimidate (“observe”) minority voters. What a gigantic and shameful step backward.
Dear Lady Jay
Thank you for making trolling so damn fun. Now a previous Supreme Court has made clear what proper electioneering is and what it isn’t. However if that state GOP want to be the catalyst that extends that national consent decree, then in ‘17, your creation will be used again, as the national GOP will soon despair at never escaping oversight.’
Once more thank you
Aaron
An 80-year-old law is suddenly unconstitutional two weeks before the election?
Okay, fine. This is clearly not an emergency. Let this election proceed then address the statute in question.