May 27, 2018
Nation Latest News | Poll Questions | George HW Bush | Memorial Day | Long Creek

Comments for: State voter ID laws hit roadblocks in courts

Guidelines for posting on

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Republicans hate democracy.

    Stop Thief!


  • Anonymous

    So let me get this straight…Michelle Obama can make it mandatory to have a picture ID to come to her book signing…you need an ID to do any business at a bank…you need an ID to receive welfare benefits…you need an ID to drive but it isn’t legal to require someone to prove who they are in order to vote?   Nah there isn’t no stinking voter fraud here…if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it’s a duck!

    • The First Lady analogy is inapt.  There is no constitutional right to have a book signed by the First Lady.  So requiring ID in that setting does not raise any constitutional concerns.  The right to vote, on the other hand, is (at least in PA) guaranteed by the PA Constitution (Article VII, Section 1):  “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.”

      Notice that possessing a photo ID is not among this Constitutional list of voter qualifications.  This analysis applies equally to your other examples — banking, driving and welfare are not constitutional rights.

  • This summarizes the legal challenge to the PA Photo ID Law:

    And you can follow developments in the lawsuit here, if you are interested:

  • Anyone notice that Maine didn’t get a mention ? Thank God since the Maine voter’s tossed out Charlie Summers attempt to screw the voter’s last year with his Voter ID try. That it got tossed out on a People’s Veto should have told a lot of other States that this type of voter manipulation isin’t going to be tolerated.  

  • Anonymous

    Abbott seems to forget that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Indiana only because a) it wasn’t covered under Section 5, and b) the Voter ID law there allows for college IDs and thus, does NOT greatly impact voters by ideology.

    Texas’s voter ID law, as well as that of my home state of South Carolina – FAILS the smell test.

    Both laws will be struck down, since the conservatives will not be picking the judges as the Dems will likely hold on to the Senate, and they would be in charge of the judicial nominations – regardless of whether Obama is re-elected, or whether Mitt Romney or Jill Stein replaces O as president.

    • Jack Levitt

       The democrats will be lucky if they can still hold up their pants after the historic landslide GOP victory coming in November. Before President Romney leaves office in 2020 I predict the Supreme Court will be a have a strong conserative majority as well. Sleep well.

      • Anonymous

        Jack, don’t count on that – the GOP will be lucky to even get 260 EVs. Women are paying attention like never before, African-Americans like myself are paying attention like never before, Latinos are paying attention like never before, LGBT people are paying attention like never before, and public sector employees are paying attention like never before – and we ALL have one common denominator: we are thoroughly disgusted with the GOP.

        That is over 50% of the electorate right there going to Obama. The GOP is about to be extinct in November – I am helping bring their radical agenda to light.

    • Many people including Abbott overstate what the Supreme Court held in the Crawford case (the Indiana voter ID case).  The Court did not hold that photo ID laws are per se Constitutional, it held that the plaintiffs who challenged the Indiana photo ID law had not come forward with enough evidence to show that the law violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Justice Scalia pointed that out in his concurring opinion: “The lead opinion assumes petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law ‘may have imposed a special burden on’ some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny.”

      So, in the case challenging the PA law, for instance, plaintiffs are bringing their claims under the PA Constitution instead of the U.S. Constitution (so there’s a good argument that the Crawford decision does not apply to it at all), and they plead in great detail how and why the law violates their rights under the PA Constitution.   Also, I don’t think the US Supreme Court will ever hear the PA case. The PA case only raises challenges under the PA Constitution and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over such claims.

      You can read some more analysis on this issue here:

  • Jack Levitt

    To buy spray paint and magic markers in Miami I have to present a photo id yet folks here are honestly saying it is not necessary and ‘racist’ to ask for one when electing our government officials? 

You may also like