Share This Page

Wrong on voter ID I

| Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley struck down the photo ID requirement contained in the 2012 Pennsylvania voter ID law. His rationale? It “unreasonably burdens the right to vote.” Unreasonably ? To whom?

Let me tell you something, judge. The right to vote comes with a certain amount of responsibility — researching candidates, understanding issues, forming an opinion and showing up to vote on Election Day. And if not by photo ID, I ask you, how is a poll worker supposed to verify that voters are who they say they are? Fingerprints? Retinal scans? DNA analysis?

Seems to me that photo ID is a simple solution. If you want to vote badly enough, you'll find a way to get an ID.

Come on, Judge McGinley. You can do better for the law-abiding, responsible voters of Pennsylvania. Reverse your decision.

Tim Walters

White Oak

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.