Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:17 AM Sep 2012

Explainer: Breaking Down The Voter ID Battle

http://newsbound.com/explainer-breaking-down-the-voter-id-battle/

Last Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered a lower court to revisit its decision upholding the state’s controversial new voter identification law. The Republican-sponsored law is intended to prevent “in-person voter impersonation” by requiring that voters show a photo ID when they arrive at the polls. It is one of a wave of voter ID laws that have swept across the country in recent years (over 30 states currently require some form of ID to vote).

In our latest Newsbound explainer — published on National Voter Registration Day! – we tackle the voter ID issue and explore these questions: How extensive is in-person voter impersonation? Why is asking for ID such a big deal? And where do we go from here?

The conversation around voting rights and ballot security is a contentious one. We hope the explainer encourages you to dive deeper. In that vein, here are some additional links on the topic of voting rights (which extends beyond just voter ID):
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Explainer: Breaking Down The Voter ID Battle (Original Post) mfcorey1 Sep 2012 OP
Simpson is holding hearings again today. He pretty much already said he would issue an injunction. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #1
 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
1. Simpson is holding hearings again today. He pretty much already said he would issue an injunction.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:46 AM
Sep 2012

Today's hearings are so he can hear what both sides have to say about what should be IN said injunction. It doesn't sound like he's open to other options at this point but wants their views before writing it. Perhaps his words are misleading, but I don't think so. The PASC didn't give him a lot of wiggle room.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Explainer: Breaking Down ...