| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Voter ID chicanery?

Email Newsletters

Sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

Letter to the Editor
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?

Michael Contes

New Kensington

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Dems ignoring constituents
  2. Wolf missing the mark
  3. Scent of jihad
  4. Haunting of Hillary
  5. Payday laws are sufficient
  6. Make Narcan one-shot deal