>I wish otherwise brilliant people like you and Charles would stop putting your replies somewhere in the middle of posts until everyone gets dizzy.

I put my replies inline to respond to specific points. Rather than a single reply at the top which may be misapplied.

>Yeah, sure, they gave her a voter ID card (something she had been doing for literally decades) the day after suit was filed.

Correction : She got her ID the day after the judge ruled on the case.

>They would have been lying down on the third rail and kissing it if they had done otherwise. But the state of Pennsylvania did try to revoke her right to vote before that, on the specific grounds that she did not have an identity card with the last name matching that on her birth certificate. It just so happens that she is in her 90s and her last name is her married name.

I reiterate the point I was making with the link I posted below.
Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID. But at precisely 1:16 p.m. Thursday, she got it anyway.

>Again, reasonable people can disagree on candidates. I have no problem with that. But I really do not like games designed to put obstacles in the way of legitimate voters. That's not democracy and that's not the kind of country we want to be.

I agree.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/Democrats-Versus-Military-Voters-Not-the-First-Time
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/02/wisconsin-absentee-ballots-for-military-voters-sent-after-deadline/


>>>Come on, Jake, that was just cover. Her case was exactly what brought this to court. They did try to deny her the right to vote.
>>
>>She got her ID the day after after the judge ruled on the case, thus demonstrating exactly how easy it was to obtain. No one tried to deny her the right to vote, the law required she have an ID. She has had one since August, 3 months before the election.
>>
>>>I have no intention of turning this into a partisan finger pointing match. Most of us are sick to death of that already and can't wait for this election to be over. God, this has been ugly. Thank you so much, Supreme Court, for the Citizens United ruling that unrestrained campaign spending is an expression of free speech. Let's let the Koch brothers and their billionaire ilk select the next President. I guess I am old fashioned about how it should be done. One man, one vote.
>>
>>You mean the old fashioned way where only unions had freedom of speech?
>>
>>>>Viviette Applewhite got her temp id back in August, one day after the judge upheld the law. That's why she was no longer the lead plaintiff in the case. No one was telling her she cannot vote, quite the opposite. ;)
>>>>
>>>>The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a PennDot office and was issued the photo ID card she needs to vote.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
>>>>
>>>>But at precisely 1:16 p.m. Thursday, she got it anyway.
>>>>http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news/breaking/&id=166490216&viewAll=y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>YOU tell this woman she can't vote and then look at yourself in the mirror. She has been voting in every election for decades. If you prefer one candidate to the other, fine, but this kind of legal shenanigans is bogus.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id/index.html?hpt=hp_t1