Voter ID chicanery?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Feb. 9, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Many of us wondered why it took so long for an appellate court ruling in the photo ID voting case. And although we were not surprised at the ruling against photo ID, many of us are fuming. It took this judge 103 pages to explain why it is an unreasonable burden on the voters of this commonwealth to prove who they are at their polling place.
Your newspaper answered my long-standing question as to what kind of judge could have wrought this decision. In the short bio in the Jan. 18 paper, it said Judge Bernard McGinley “hails from a long line of lawyers prominent in the region.” The bio also states McGinley is an Allegheny County Democrat who won his statewide election to the court in 1987 by a razor-thin margin of fewer than 5,000 votes out of more than 2 million.
Is it possible this judge, from a county known to be riddled with voter fraud, benefited from such chicanery. And if so, would this not be a conflict of interest in his deciding this case? Could not the courts have picked a more impartial judge to decide this case in a more expeditious fashion and with a more sensible ruling?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- No basis for NRA criticism II
- No basis for NRA criticism I
- No basis for NRA criticism III
- Gas drilling’s benefits
- Respect for vets
- Children safer
- Imam’s thoughts
- Ruling good for Pa.
- Voting rights bill
- Kiski board ignores taxpayers
- Tragedy’s ramifications II