can vote."

they waste no time

I'm shocked a Republican actually told the truth.

use Turzai's comments, statements in their case? This statement clearly shows the intent of the law & not that it is to combat voter fraud.

I think it depends on what legal standard the Court adopts.

A law that restricts a fundamental Constitutional right such as voting must pass the "strict scrutiny test." That means the Legislature must establish that the law serves a compelling state interest and that there are no less restrictive means of protecting that interest. The proponents of the law have been arguing that the prevention of voter fraud is the supposed compelling state interest that the law serves. Rep. Turzai's statement suggests that the prevention of voter fraud is a pretext and that the real interest the law is attempting to advance is helping the majority party's preferred candidate prevail in November. That, of course, is not a compelling state interest that would justifying a law that limits a fundamental right.

Having said that, the proponents of the law have been arguing that the Court need not hold the Commonwealth to the strict scrutiny standard, but rather may uphold the law if it has a "plainly legitimate sweep." If the Court applies the "plainly legitimate sweep" test, I am not sure whether Rep. Turzai's comments would matter.

You can read some additional analysis of the two tests here: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/reaction-to-intervenors-preliminary-objections-part-iii-overstating-clifton/.

welcome.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a plan all our supposed "D" legislators could agree on?

-- Mal

TheMath™ in a fit of delusional grand-standing.

Even the last time that they did a massive voter purge in the early 1990s didn't stop determined voters (most notably Philadelphians) from voting for Bill Clinton, who took the state in the 1992 election. The state hasn't voted for a repuke President since 1988.

As FYI - in 2008, there were 1.2 million MORE registered Democrats than repukes in PA.

Pennsylvania being one of the "Laboratories of Democracy" -- Republican style -- we're going to get a good example of whether tons of money, gerrymandering, voter purges, and compromising voting machines can be the winning recipe for a RW coup. They certainly appear to believe so, but then, they would, wouldn't they?

-- Mal

Four years ago I traveled over to Pennsylvania with my young daughter to hopefully, get a glimpse of this young Obama that would soon be President. When I arrived at the Civic Arena I couldn't believe the people who were already in line. It was a frigid cold day and behind me were three elderly women. One of them must have been 90 years old. They were white but, they were singing praises for Obama. We stood in line for three hours or more. It was an exciting day and one that my daughter and I will never forget. We didn't get anywhere near Obama but, we were able to see some newspeople in person like Candy Crowley, etc. It was the first time I had ever been at a political rally. I wish my state (WV) felt this way. They were excited for Hillary but, many did not latch on to Obama. Me, I was Obama from the beginning of the "08" campaign.

Anyway, I relate this because I know Pa. Dems will handle this. There is no way they are going to let the Uglicans take over. We need to be careful about voter discrepency but, at the same time not fall for all the ugliness out there. Think more positive. I believe Pa. will be Obama. On the way home that day we stopped to eat and two people came up to us and handed us souvenir buttons. We placed them with our other treasures of the "08" election. We are going to win this thing folks! We have to!!!

This is huge

.....and when I called the Jud. comm. itself the guy knew exactly what I was talking about in about 10 seconds.

I don't understand how this could not be treated as a criminal conspiracy to deny blacks, browns.......fill in the space....

the right to vote while, white folk are pretty much unscathed.

The senate jiudicary commitee list: http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=sjudi

Call all the dems & Leahy & the committee itself & demand an investigation.

At the Judiciary site there was a meeting yesterday.......“Prohibiting the Use of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Tactics in Federal Elections: S.1994”

click on jud. commitee link & hit "Hearings & Meetings"

Although Tweety had his predictable reaction.

Back in the days of Watergate, everyone talked about looking for the "smoking gun." If this isn't a smoking gun, what is?

-- Mal