Readers Respond to Voter ID Ruling

We asked you to tell us what you thought of today's Voter ID ruling on our Facebook page, and quite a few of you spoke up. 

Some readers pointed out many of the arguments already expressed - the need to prevent fraud, disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, the quick implementation of the plan. 

William Panetta, the first to respond, said, "It should not be put on hold. This is an important election and voter fraud is a big problem so why would anyone object to the law unless they want to cheat."

Mark Rice said, "It's hard to argue against a law requiring people to prove identity in order for them to be permitted to vote. But it seems a bit disingenuous to require it to be implemented in a way that would, in all likelihood, block many honest and otherwise qualified people from voting."

One reader had a suggestion to use technology to help: "[T]hey could use the wonderful technology we have out nowadays to make sure all people with death certificates in their name are electronically stricken from the system if and when a vote is placed in their name. With the tech out today, that really should not be a problem," said reader Eric Holt.

Bri Miller said, "You need an ID for everything else in this world, this shouldn't be any different. Now, with that being said...here's the other part to that. The speed and rush that was placed on this piece of legislature was unprecedented and unwarranted...So, do we need ID"s at the voting booth in general...yes. Did we need them "RIGHT STAT NOW!" - absolutely not."

patch also heard from two local council members, both from Spring City. (Responses from other local leaders had not been received at press time.)

Councilman Michael Hays (who is a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in the 26th District) said: 

The law should have never been enacted. It was an obvious attempt to suppress turnout from people who are likely to re-elect President Obama. I agree 100 percent with the injunction because in an American democracy, we cannot afford to turn ONE person away from the polls who could not secure an adequate photo ID in time. From Day One, this Republican law was a horrible solution to a problem that did not exist.

A nationwide analysis by professional journalists revealed that over the course of a dozen years, exactly 10 cases of alleged in-person election fraud occurred. That's one for every 15 million prospective voters.  We have much larger issues to deal with in Pennsylvania. Let's not add disenfranchisement to the list.

Spring City councilman James Burns said:

I am in favor of repeal of the law, I know way to many people that currently do not have what would be considered a valid ID and getting one before the election was a definite barrier.  In Spring City borough, voter fraud is not a problem.

You can read more responses on our Facebook page and add your own comment there, or here. 

Related Stories

• Pa. Voter ID Law On Hold Until After Presidential Election
• Pa. Voter ID Law Halted by Judge
• Twitter Reacts To Voter ID Ruling
• Why Judge Simpson Delayed Voter ID Law
• MontCo Debuts New Voter ID