Woke Segregation: London Play to Have 'All-Black' Audience Nights to Stop 'White Gaze'
NBC labels a journalist 'A former singer of a David Bowie tribute band'...
Canada Goes Full 'Minority Report': Proposed 'Hate Speech' Bill Is Dystopian Nightmare
Conservatives on Twitter Send a Message to Leftists by Taking Over #WhiteRuralRage Hashtag
Not Just Harvard: Columbia University Diversity Officer Plagiarized Dissertation From Wiki...
NOT Happening: 'Advisers' Say Older People Should Get Another COVID Shot, Get Resounding...
Government Won't Help You: NY Couple's Dream Home Occupied by Squatter Who Has...
John Kirby Walks Back a Biden Claim in RECORD Time (This Time About...
Riley Gaines, Seth Dillon Deliver on Promise to Compensate Women for Refusing to...
We Did NOT Have John Fetterman Hilariously MOCKING Rashida Tlaib on Our Bingo...
NY Times Thought Everyone Should Know Stephen Colbert Declared SCOTUS Unconstitutional
Chaya Raichik Calls Elon Musk OUT for Reinstating Rules Around Pronouns and Misgendering
Trump Must Not Think Biden Will Be the Democrat's Nominee ... Just Sayin'
Make 1984 Fiction Again! You'll Never GUESS the Award CBS' President Won AFTER...
'Define WOMAN': Women Take Letitia James APART for Her Lame Message to Kick...

Weasel move: Pa. judge blocks voter ID law until after November election

Chalk one up for voter fraud. Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson ruled today that the voter ID requirements signed into law this past March cannot be enforced until after the general election. His reason? Disenfranchisement of potential voters. The law states that voters must present a valid photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Under Simpson’s ruling, voters can still be asked for identification, but if they cannot comply, they will still be allowed to vote:

Advertisement

“I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election,” Simpson wrote. “Under these circumstances, I am obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.”

However, Simpson’s ruling allows other provisions of the law to stand, including voter education efforts that a photo ID is required to cast a ballot. Election officials also can ask for a photo ID, but cannot prevent people from voting if they don’t have one.

The judge wrote that state legislators intended for election officials to request a photo ID during the transition period for the new law “even though the vote will be counted regardless of compliance with the request.”

Several people remarked on the the judge strangely sanctioning ballot workers to ignore photo IDs:

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/253149286836105218

https://twitter.com/Lilleth71/status/253178560150376448

It’s worth noting that this is the same Judge Robert Simpson who ruled against an injunction in August. So perhaps his wishy-washy view of the photo ID requirement isn’t so out of character.

Advertisement

Those who subscribe to the Sarah Silverman school of thought and believe large swaths of voters are too incompetent to procure valid photo IDs were ecstatic:

https://twitter.com/goodfella215/status/253160504011395072

https://twitter.com/DeeeVaaa/status/253160545723744256

https://twitter.com/mikestout_msu/status/253161626969178112

https://twitter.com/hesslerdesign/status/253162236867133441

https://twitter.com/MichaelVthe2nd/status/253163005414604800

Advertisement

Proponents of accountability were disgusted:

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/dennyJr22/status/253162590178525184

https://twitter.com/WynnSullivan/status/253162856164503553

https://twitter.com/hostilecarl/status/253163874122100736

https://twitter.com/LivingItWrite/status/253170178202931200

Advertisement

Bingo.

The ruling could still be appealed, though with just over one month left until the general election, time is running out.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement