How much voter fraud was done in the 2008 election for obama because of Acorn. It was the Republican that called them out on this. If Acorn didn't have illegals and minorities going from one polling place to another to vote for obama then he wouldn't of gotten all the illegal votes. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows/ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/acorn_says_raids_timing_are_cu.html http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/06/04/ohio-prosecutor-acorn-voter-fraudillegal-voting-probe-underway.aspx

And it isn't going to take much training of the people working at the voting places to ask for ID, but according to the Democrats in office in Pennsylvania, they say it is going to cost hundreds of thousands to train them. Democrats don't want ID's to be shown as people can't vote more than once if this law wasn't in effect.

Please provide whatever evidence you have to support your allegation that "illegals" voted numerous times in the 2008 election. They had to be in the poll books and had to sign in before they could vote. So if your allegations are true, it would be very easy for someone to just go though the poll books and figure out whether any of the people who signed in to voter were in fact "illegals." Where is the evidence?

Also, non-citizens are allowed to get drivers' licenses (http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195nc.pdf). So how will requiring voters to show a photo ID prevent non-citizens from voting?

freeandequalpa go read about Acorn during the 2008 election.

JustMe -- I am well aware of the ACORN stories and, as far as I can tell, they all relate to alleged REGISTRATION problems. I cannot find a single story in which it was ever proven that ACORN was involved in voter impersonation at the polls. In fact:

"A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility."

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1w4gFUTbx

Since the only thing requiring photo ID at the polling place prevents is voter impersonation and there is no evidence of voter impersonation, what problem is the law solving? If you want to improve the registration system to prevent improper registrations, fine. But the photo ID law does not accomplish that goal.

People that get income tax checks and pay checks have to show Id when they go to cash them at Banks, Walmart and any other stores that cash them. Don't know many people in this day and age that don't have picture ID's unless they are running from the law.

ml there is a ton of senior citizens that write their bills out with checks. They don't know how to use computers to pay their bills, or how to get on the internet.

most senior centers are looking for volunteers to come in and teach older adults how to use the internet.

Since all ballots are cast anonymously, please explain how you know that the dead people who supposedly voted cast straight Democratic tickets?

free - Because when I died, like others, I signed up with ACORN.

free - Or, another proof. Because the deceased are certified brain-dead which qualifies them to vote for a straight Democratic Party slate.

bd -- Since your snide comments are not evidence, you have now made clear that cannot support your claim. Thank you for proving my point.

free - Or, the rest of the nation is simply adopting Chicago-style politics? Cheer up, free. Lighten up, free. Be care-free, free.

freeandequalpa have you ever read the Newspapers, read the news on the internet, or watched the news on TV.

JustMe -- If there are, as your claim, so many reports out there of proven voter impersonation at the polls (the only thing the photo ID law would prevent), please post a link to just one of them.

JustMe: It's not my lawsuit -- I have nothing to do with it. I am just interested in it (because I am a Judge of Election and will have to enforce it) and, therefore, set up a blog to report on it.

But, to answer your question, getting a library card, a job, medical treatment, etc. are not Constitutional rights. Voting is. Article VII, Section 1 of the PA Constitution says:

“Every citizen 21 [now 18] years of age, possessing the following qualifications [relating to citizenship and residency requirements], shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”

Laws that infringe upon Constitutional rights, like the Photo ID Law, are invalid.

And I still fail to understand why you keep talking about Muslims. That has nothing to do with the Photo ID Law or the lawsuit against it.

I see, so a veteran who has faced the adversity of war and survived is now defeated by the unscalable task of getting a free ID card. Let's hope the Taliban doesn't hear about this.

Mike I totally agree with you, states can't find birth certificates (hog wash), it smells illegals and Acorn all over this. NAACP involved Acorn. I'm sure these people that filed this suit aren't even Americans. My son served in the Military and has Photo ID, from them and if he loses it all he has to do is go to any base or over to the VA and he can get a copy of it. As he needs his photo ID if he wants to still shop in a military stores.

free was doing some research on what your article that your posting. Those that you say can't get photo ID are muslims and they say it is against their religion to be photographed. Yet when muslims have weddings and parties they always have their cameras out taking pictures of their special occasions, yet they can't be photographed for a ID card.

freeanddqualpa, here is an article for you to read

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/

The problem is that not everyone is as privileged as you are. Some people can not afford a car, so why do they need a license? Some people do not have enough money to warrant opening a bank account, so they do not need an ID for that. And, more importantly, some people cannot obtain one of the forms of ID deemed acceptable under the law. I do not mean it would be difficult or expensive for them to obtain ID. I mean it would be impossible for them to obtain ID. Read about it in this summary of the lawsuit challenging the law:

http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/summary-of-applewhite-petition/

Also, a high school ID is not accepted under the law -- only IDs from institutions of higher learning. Sorry, Baldwin Whitehall students. Read more about the law here:

http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/pa-photo-id-law-summary/

As for all of the other things you say require ID, none of them are Constitutional rights. The right to vote is. Article VII, Section 1 of the PA Constitution says:

“Every citizen 21 [now 18] years of age, possessing the following qualifications [relating to citizenship and residency requirements], shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”

It says nothing about needing photo ID to vote.

As for your mother, did you report the incident to the authorities? What did their investigation show?

freeandepualpa you are so wrong, I misplaced mine and my son's social security card and had to get new ones for both of us. I took our birth certificates out to the Social Security office and I was able to get a Social Security card but my son wasn't. They told me I had to bring a Picture ID out there to get a social security card. She told me that I could bring a library card or his school ID out there as long as they had his picture on them. The next day I took his Baldwin High School ID out there to Social Security and got him his social security card. So don't say a school ID isn't acceptable when in fact it is valid ID. Also they accept a High School ID at the DMV when kids go and get their permits to learn to drive.

Some stores now make you show Photo ID when you want to do a return on merchandise and if you try to cash a check at Wal-Mart you need to show photo ID.

JustMe - The rules that apply to getting a replacement Social Security card are not the same as the Photo ID Law. But, do not take my word for it, here is a the list of acceptable forms of ID directly from the Commonwealth's webpage (http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt/community/preparing_for_election_day/13517/voter_id_law/1115447):

"All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current, unless noted otherwise. Acceptable IDs include:

Photo IDs issued by the U.S. Federal Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania driver’s license or non-driver’s license photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date)

Valid U.S. passport

U.S. military ID - active duty and retired military (a military or veteran’s ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinite). Military dependents’ ID must contain an expiration date

Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, County or Municipal government

Photo ID cards from an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning

Photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes"

So a library card or school ID or social security card won't work to vote. Make sure your son gets one of the IDs on the list, or he will be disenfranchised too.

ML
11:27 pm on Monday, May 28, 2012
<<<The next day I took his Baldwin High School ID out there to Social Security and got him his social security card. So don't say a school ID isn't acceptable when in fact it is valid ID. ">>>>

BWHS ID is not accepted for voter ID according to the law as written now.
Just one possible reason that reform to this law is necessary.

ML IF YOU WOULD READ IT CORRECTLY A BALDWIN HIGH SCHOOL ID OR PICTURE LIBRARY CARD IS VALID ID TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD. THEY WON'T ACCEPT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BUT WILL ACCEPT A SCHOOL ID TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE. THEN AGAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . AND YOUR COMMENTS.

Sarah I do believe that freeandequalpa is actually Marty Schmotzer and just keeps on running his mouth. Everyone can obtain a birth certificate, social security card, and a Pa non drivers card free of charge. freeandequalpa just keeps on posting the one article over and over again and there are so many articles out on the net that say differently. if free is the judge of elections, why don't they use their real name. And a person in this type of office shouldn't be saying anything about the election, they should be no bias

No, I am not Marty Schmotzer, but believe whatever you want to believe.

Fact: The plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the law are specific examples of people who cannot get the documents necessary to vote. So you are simply wrong that "everyone can obtain" those documents. If you read the lawsuit, you will learn the details. If you refuse to do so, that's up to you.

There is a Judge of Election in every polling place in PA. I am one of them. I ran for and was elected to the position. We run as partisans and we are permitted to express our opinions and engage in partisan activities 363 days a year. The only time we are required to remain unbiased is on election days.

And you misunderstand what I am saying. I do not disagree that ID is required -- and rightly so -- to do many things in this day and age. But you then illogically jump to the conclusion that everyone either has photo ID or, more importantly, can get it if they want it. As the plaintiffs in the case against the law show, that simply is not true. Some people cannot get one of the forms of ID that the law deems acceptable.

If you believe that it is OK to strip people who cannot get ID of their Constitutional right to vote, you are entitled to that opinion. But I respectfully disagree.

Mike writes: "Because some can't afford a car, should all be denied the ability to drive?"

This is an inapt analogy. The privilege to drive a car is not, like voting, a Constitutional right.

Mike writes: "If someone lives miles away from a polling location and finds it very difficult to vote, should all be denied on their behalf?"

This doesn't work either. Those who are incapable of getting to their polling place are accommodated -- they can vote absentee.

freeandequilpa writes, "Those who are incapable of getting to their polling place are accommodated -- they can vote absentee."

Quite true, and exactly my point. We don't prevent the entire process of voting because a tiny few have a greater burden and must be accommodated. The requirement to show an ID, such as a drivers license, is nothing for 99% plus of the population. And, by doing so, helps to ensure the fairness of the election process. Because someone may have to actually get a free ID to vote, shouldn't prevent the securing of the voting process. After all, they need to actively request that absentee voting form as well.

Mike writes: "Because someone may have to actually get a free ID to vote, shouldn't prevent the securing of the voting process."

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that, for certain voters, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them, no matter the efforts they make, to obtain the free ID offered by the state? Once again, I invite you to actually read about the voters who are challenging the law: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/summary-of-applewhite-petition/

Mike writes: "We don't prevent the entire process of voting because a tiny few have a greater burden and must be accommodated."

How is the Commonwealth accommodating the voters for whom it is impossible to obtain one of the approved forms of ID? I will answer that one for you: It isn't. Instead, it is disenfranchising them.

Oh really, here is what the official Pennsylvania Department of State says about not being able to vote...

"If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable form of ID due to indigence, including an inability to pay for a certified birth certificate to get a free ID, the voter will still be able to vote by provisional ballot. However, in order for the ballot to count, the voter must, within six days after the election, provide the county board of elections with an affirmation that states that the voter is the same person who cast the provisional ballot, and that the voter is indigent and therefore unable to obtain proof of identification without the payment of a fee."

Sounds pretty accommodating to me... All the person needs to do is sign an affirmation stating that he/she doesn't have an acceptable form of ID. That's it.

If you want to read the entire Pennsylvania Department of State FAQ document concerning the new voter ID law and see what a load of crap this lawsuit is, follow this link: http://www.alleghenycounty.us/elect/PhotoID/GeneralFAQ.pdf

Mike -- Please read the entire document in the link you posted, not just the section you think supports your argument.

The section you excerpted applies to voters who cannot afford an ID: "If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable form of ID DUE TO INDIGENCE" that voter can vote provisionally and their vote will be counted if they submit an affirmation within 6 days. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit aren't indigent, so they cannot use this provision. They cannot submit an affirmation saying they are indigent when they are not indigent.

The section immediately preceding the one you excerpt applies to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. It asks: "What if the voter shows up at the polling place without an acceptable ID?" And the answer is:

"The voter will be able to vote by provisional ballot. However, in order for the ballot to count, a voter must, within 6 days after the election, provide the county board of elections WITH A COPY OF AN ACCEPTABLE ID and an affirmation that the voter is the same person who cast the provisional ballot."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit do not have and cannot get an acceptable ID, so if they voted provisionally, they would not be able to submit a copy of an acceptable ID and their votes would not count.

Jean Smith writes: "A VA card is acceptable form of ID to take to the DMV to get a non drivers license ID card."

Wrong. A VA card is not on the list of acceptable forms of ID that can be used to obtain the free photo ID card. Don't believe me? Ask PennDOT:

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195us.pdf

A VA card is acceptable form of ID to take to the DMV to get a non drivers license ID card. So the veteran can take his Military ID to any DMV and get a Photo ID card if he doesn't drive. I just talked to my neighbor who is retired from the military and had to get PA ID because he doesn't drive any more. He wasn't charged either to get a PA ID card.

The "veteran" has his military ID which is acceptable. If he lost it, he can get another one by just asking.

Acceptable IDs include:
Photo IDs issued by the U.S Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
* PS Driver's License or PennDOT ID card
* U.S. Passport
* U.S. Military ID, Military dependent's IDs with current expiration date
* Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, PA County, or Municipal Government
* Photo ID issued by accredited PA public/private institution of higher learning
* Photo ID issued by PA care facility
In the case of a voter who has a religious objection to being photographed, acceptable IDs include:
* Valid without-photo PA driver's license
* PennDOT valid without-photo ID card

To obtain a free Photo ID for voting you will need...

1) The application for initial photo ID card
2) A Social Security Card and 1 of the following:
* A certificate of U.S. Citizenship
* A certificate of Naturalization
* A valid U.S. Passport
* A birth certificate with raised seal
3) Two proofs of residency, such as a lease agreement, current utility bills,
mortgage documents, W-2 form, tax records

http://www.ehow.com/way_5805627_documents-do-need-join-military_.html

What Documents Do You Need to Join the Military?

By Leigh Anthony, eHow Contributor
What Documents Do You Need to Join the Military? | eHow.com
Identification Documents
Gather all identification documents. You will need to have your driver's license, social security card and certified copy of your birth certificate. In addition, you may need naturalization paperwork if applicable.

Education Documents
Get all education-related certificates. The military will need originals of graduation certificates from high school, technical schools and colleges. If you have not graduated from college or technical school, certified copies of your transcript will be needed. College credits can enable you to start at a higher rank when you enter the military, which will translate to better pay.

If the Veteran Can't get a copy of his Birth Certificate from the state that he was born, he can get a copy from the branch of the service that he served in as they have to have a copy of his birth certificate on record for him to join the military.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/applying5.htm

What Documents Will You Need When You Apply For Social Security

We may need to see certain documents in order to pay benefits and help us decide how much your benefits should be. The documents you'll need will depend on the circumstances of your claim. The documents we may ask for are:
your Social Security card (or a record of your number);
your original birth certificate or other proof of birth (You may also submit a copy of your birth certificate certified by the issuing agency);
proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status if you were not born in the U.S.;
a copy of your U.S. military service paper(s) (e.g., DD-214 - Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) if you had military service before 1968; and
a copy of your W-2 form(s) and/or self-employment tax return for last year.

bd ...... you and I think a lot alike with regard to Schmotzer. He is an unnecessary individual and, for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone with any brain matter voted for him, even for the short time (thank you Jesus) that he will be occupying this seat. I strongly recommend that whoever wins this seat in the fall does a full audit of his office to make sure everything is still where it should be. The only thing that I can figure is anyone with the last name of Schmotzer or who is related to them in any way were the only ones who voted for him. Hopefully the people of the school district will NEVER vote for him again to be a member of the school board.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit show that the Commonwealth's claim that no one legally entitled to vote will be denied the right to vote is demonstrably false. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- all Americans who have lived here for decades, voted for decades and are validly registered to vote -- will be disenfranchised by the law because they do not have and cannot obtain the free ID, and are not indigent so cannot take advantage of the exception for indigent voters.

And how many of those 1,492 "potentially fraudulent" registrations does the article say actually voted? It doesn't. It would be easy enough to check -- just look at poll books to see if they signed in. But the author of the article either did not do that (knowing he wouldn't like the answer) or did do it but the investigation did not produce the result he wanted. Don't you think, if he could prove any of these "potentially fraudulent" registrations actually voted, he would have published an article saying so?

Also, how do you know that those 1,492 "potentially fraudulent" registrations did not have photo ID? If they did, all 1,492 could have voted even with a photo ID law in place. Again, the photo ID law does not solve deficiencies in the REGISTRATION system, which is what all of you articles are talking about -- registrations, not actual votes.

I am still waiting for evidence that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a ballot that would not have been cast had the voter been required to show photo ID.

"I am still waiting for evidence that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a ballot that would not have been cast had the voter been required to show photo ID."

This is an impossible task, since I would first have to identify the fraudulent votes, then cross reference those votes with the people who cast them. Since the people who voted did so anonymously, there's no way of testing the premiss that an ID card would have effected the outcome.

What you can say is, if a person must demonstrate with a secure form of photo ID they are who they claim to be and that they are allowed to vote in only one location stated on the ID, then the ability for fraud to occur is significantly reduced. It is simple to register to vote any where and as often as you want. The ID provides verification to prevent extraneous entries from progressing. This is a a common form of data checking that's been around since people started keeping records. How do I know this? I'm a software engineer and have worked with data for 25 years and counting. Free, you're so FOS.

Mike writes: "there's no way of testing the premiss that an ID card would have effected the outcome."

That's not the question I asked. I asked for evidence "that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a ballot that would not have been cast had the voter been required to show photo ID."

That is easy to test. You take a statistically significant sample of voters who signed the poll book and contact them to ask whether they, in fact, voted. Or, get a list of voters who died before the last election but were still in the poll books and check to see if they voted. For any registrations you suspect are fraudulent, look to see whether that person actually voted.

Mike also writes: "What you can say is, if a person must demonstrate with a secure form of photo ID they are who they claim to be and that they are allowed to vote in only one location stated on the ID, then the ability for fraud to occur is significantly reduced."

That is an undeniably true statement. However, the law does not require the address on the ID to match the address in the poll book (in fact, some of the acceptable forms of ID on the list do not contain an address at all). It also does not answer the question of whether it is constitutionally permissible to deny certain voters their right to vote in order to reduce the ability for fraud to occur. That question will be decided by the Courts.

Apparently there is voter fraud out there or they wouldn't of passed the law on valid ID to vote in PENNSYLVANIA

And how many of those 35,000 "questionable" registrations does the article say actually voted? It doesn't. It would be easy enough to check -- just look at poll books to see if they signed in. But the author of the article either did not do that (knowing he wouldn't like the answer) or did do it but the investigation did not produce the result he wanted. Don't you think, if he could prove any of these "potentially fraudulent" registrations actually voted, he would have published an article saying so?

Also, how do you know that those 35,000 "questionable" registrations did not have photo ID? If they did, all 35,000 could have voted even with a photo ID law in place. Again, the photo ID law does not solve deficiencies in the REGISTRATION system, which is what all of you articles are talking about -- registrations, not actual votes.

I am still waiting for evidence that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a ballot that would not have been cast had the voter been required to show photo ID.

And how many times does the article say this voter actually voted? It doesn't. It would be easy enough to check -- just look at poll books to see how many times he signed in. But the author of the article either did not do that (knowing he wouldn't like the answer) or did do it but the investigation did not produce the result he wanted. Don't you think, if he could prove this voter voted more than once, he would have published an article saying so?

Also, how do you know that this voter did not have photo ID? If he did, he could have voted 72 times even with a photo ID law in place. Again, the photo ID law does not solve deficiencies in the REGISTRATION system, which is what all of your articles are talking about -- registrations, not actual votes.

I am still waiting for evidence that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a ballot that would not have been cast had the voter been required to show photo ID.

And your point is what? That, as long as minority voting increases after a photo ID law is put in place, it is OK to disenfranchise those who cannot obtain ID?

"Disenfranchised" is getting so over used. Would this term be used to describe not allowing an illegal immigrant to vote in our elections? When people were intimated at a poll in Philly in 2008 by armed members of the New Black Panther Party, were the non-minority people who did not vote disenfranchised?

bd asks: "Would this term [disenfranchised] be used to describe not allowing an illegal immigrant to vote in our elections?" Answer: No.

bd asks: "When people were intimated at a poll in Philly in 2008 by armed members of the New Black Panther Party, were the non-minority people who did not vote disenfranchised?" Answer: Yes. But how does a requirement to show photo ID solve that problem?

Ah, so now you are resorting to calling names. The last refuge of someone whose arguments have been defeated. Thank you for proving me right.

So that what this is about, free. You think you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, polling done across the state shows that people are heavily in favor of requiring some form of ID before voting. And you have not brought people on this blog around to your way of thinking. Yet, you have announce you are right. Actually you are Left.

For many years the majority believed that women should not be entitled to vote. For many years the majority believed that the schools should be segregated. For many years the majority believed that it was ok to send children off to work in the factories and mines. I do not care what the majority believes. I care about what is right. Passing a law that will disenfranchise voters on the pretext of curing a problem -- voter impersonation at the polls -- that no one can prove exists is not right.

If it is your position that denying a small number of people their constitutional right to vote is an acceptable trade-off in order to reduce the possibility of voter impersonation fraud in the future despite the lack of evidence that it has occurred in the past, at least that is a reasoned opinion. I would disagree with that opinion, but I would at least respect it as intellectual honesty. But insisting, in the face of contrary evidence, that the law will not disenfranchise anyone, and insisting that voter impersonation fraud at the polls is a real problem when you cannot point to any evidence that it happens is not a reasoned opinion -- it is demagoguery.

My goal was not to bring anyone around to anything. My goal was to discuss the facts. The facts are not right or wrong, they are just facts. Some here did not like the facts and, unfortunately, decided to take their frustration out by attacking me instead. That's fine. I can handle it. But since this discussion has devolved from a civil back-and-forth about the facts to name-calling, I see no benefit to continuing the discourse and will bid you all adieu with best wishes for a pleasant Memorial Day holiday.

For anyone interested in following developments about the lawsuit challenging the Photo ID Law, I invite you to visit my blog: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/. You may be surprised to see that I post links to and discuss the arguments made by those who are defending the law.

But free your not right about anything, you got 2 stupid articles that you keep on referencing to and there is no proof in either article that the people can't get birth certificates or Photo ID's. Show me exactly where the proof is the article that they tried to get ID cards. This is just like the lawsuits that are filed from inmates in jail. Not a leg to stand on and just a waste of tax payers money started by the Democrats.

Hey free, if you're so open and interested in "what's right" why do you hide your website by redirecting through a Wordpress blog with an app. Don't want anyone to know who you really are. Don't want people to know the organizations that are funding your little terror campaign. Me, I was born in Pittsburgh and have lived in Whitehall all my life, how about you....

free who did you defeat, you haven't proven anything at all with your blogs or anything you write.

free the ones that don't have a photo ID still are able to vote. it is written in the rules that were made for the elections this year when you have to show ID.

Jean Smith wrote: "you must be some illegal that is afraid to be shipped back where you come from"

That's not name-calling? I guess she meant it in a nice way.

South Hills, so true there. She hasn't proven anything with those two articles that they can't get Photo Id's. It is on her word that they can't get them. They probably never tried to get Photo ID's. and are to lazy to do the work to get them. Everything on the internet isn't the Gospel Truth.

Free your the owner of the webpage that you keep on writing about on here and why should we believe anything that you write. I did some research and it seem like a few weeks ago that 3 of the plaintiffs in the article that you state have gotten their birth certificates and can go get photo ID's. All those articles on the web site have no author listed, as you wrote them all. Where is the disclaimer for the web site? Where are all the sources for proof that any of the articles on there are true?

Where is the proof that you are a Judge of Elections. Anyone can apply to be a Judge of Elections btw, you get paid about 110 for sitting the day of elections and anyone can apply to be one.

JustMe - Although I had intended to leave this discussion, I will at least do you the courtesy of answering your questions this one last time:

1) My article was summarizing the lawsuit that was filed. My source was the lawsuit, to which I provided a link in the article. Since you apparently missed the link in the article, here is a direct link to the lawsuit: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/PetitionApplewhite.pdf. It identifies the plaintiffs, explains what they have done to attempt to obtain ID, and describes the results.

2) Yes, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit got her birth certificate last week. I do not know why you had to search so hard for that information since I posted it on my blog last week: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/applewhite-receives-her-birth-certificate/. See, I don't just write about developments that support my opinion. I report on everything I find related to the case.

3) Yes, I wrote all of the blog entries, being that it's my blog. I disclosed that fact in the "About" page of the blog: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/about/. I have included a link to the source for every article on the blog.

4) If you do not want to take my word for it that I am a Judge of Election, then don't. But whether I am or not is irrelevant to the underlying issue of whether the Photo ID Law violates the PA Constitution.

Amen.

I said military ID not VA Card. A military ID is most definitely an acceptable form of ID, since it is "a photo ID issued by the U.S. Government..." You're a judge? Really?

JustMe: Please post the link to the source of your information that 3 of the plaintiffs got ID since the suit was filed. I would like to update my blog with that information, but cannot do so without a source. Thanks.

Also, as for the VA card, I posted a comment last night explaining that VA cards are not acceptable because they do not contain expiration dates. Only IDs that contain expiration dates (or say they never expire) are acceptable under the law. If you want to read the details, my post is in these comments somewhere.

Thanks for the helpful information, Jean. Keep in mind, though, that a military "retiree" is not the same thing as a military "veteran." As a general rule, a career member of the military -- someone who served 20 years or more -- is a "retiree." Those who served less time are "veterans." This webpage describes the difference in greater detail: http://mrgrg-ms.org/not-same.html.

What this means is that a "retiree" can get a military card, but a "veteran" only can get a VA card.

Here is a list of all of the various types of military ID cards. You will see that many are available to retirees, but none are available to veterans (unless they are 100% disabled): http://www.cac.mil/uniformed-services-id-card/

Also note that, if a retiree does not already have an acceptable form of photo ID under the law, he will not be able to get a military ID card because you need a photo ID to get the military ID: "[Y]ou must bring two forms of ID in original form. At least one form of ID must be a valid state or federal government-issued picture identification (for example, passport, driver's license, or current CAC)." (http://www.cac.mil/uniformed-services-id-card/getting-your-id-card/)

Free even when people were drafted, they had to have their birth certificate with them when they reported to be sworn in so they Government could fill out their paper work, along with the birth certificate they also needed their Social Security Cards.

Free even when people were drafted, they had to have their birth certificate with them when they reported to be sworn in so they Government could fill out their paper work, along with the birth certificate they also needed their Social Security Cards.

Where did you get this information? I am finding conflicting information:

"Information You Need To Apply For Benefits

We suggest you have the following information when you apply. It will make completing the application much easier.

Your date and place of birth and Social Security number;
Your bank or other financial institution's Routing Transit Number and the account number [more info], if you want the benefits electronically deposited.
The amount of money earned last year and this year. If you are filing for benefits in the months of September through December, you will also need to estimate next year's earnings;
The name and address of your employer(s) for this year and last year;
The beginning and ending dates of any active U.S. military service you had before 1968; and
The name, Social Security number and date of birth or age of your current spouse and any former spouse. You should also know the dates and places of marriage and dates of divorce or death (if appropriate).

We will help you review your earnings history when we receive the application."

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/info/isba/retirement/firstpartyrib.htm#a0=4

free it is under documents that you need to provide.

Applying For Retirement Benefits
Documents You May Need To Provide

We may need to see certain documents in order to pay benefits. A list of documents we need to see will appear at the end of the application, along with instructions on where to submit them. The documents we may ask for are:

your original birth certificate or other proof of birth [more info] (You may also submit a copy of your birth certificate certified by the issuing agency).;
your original citizenship or naturalization papers [more info];
a copy of your U.S. military service paper(s) (e.g., DD-214 - Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) if you had military service before 1968; [more info]; and
a copy of your W-2 form(s) [more info] and/or self-employment tax return [more info] for last year.
Note: If our records show that documents proving age or citizenship/naturalization have already been submitted for an earlier Medicare or Social Security claim (such as Disability, Supplemental Security Income, etc.), you do not need to submit the documents again.

This is on the Social Security Website.

Thanks. When you click on the "more info" link next to the "birth certificate or other proof of birth" it says:

"If we ask for proof of your age, you must show us a birth certificate or religious record showing your age that was made before you were age 5 if one was established. This is our preferred proof of age.

If a public or religious record was not made before you were age 5, you must show us at least two other documents you may have that prove your age, such as a

birth certificate recorded after you were age 5,
school record,
State census record,
vaccination record,
insurance policy,
hospital admission record, etc.

Please show us the oldest of these documents."

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/hlp/isba/10/hlp-isba004-poa.htm

So it sounds like, if you don't have a birth certificate, you can still obtain social security benefits by providing one of the other forms of proof of birth. It would be nice if PennDOT accepted those same alternate forms to proof of birth to obtain a photo ID card, but it looks like they insist on a birth certificate:

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195us.pdf