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
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.
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Ukraine & history
- Funding priorities questioned
- Proven success
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66