I see state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has pledged to keep the voter ID issue as one of his many outrageous crusades.
The poll workers have our signatures from the county Election Bureau in front of them. I sign the voting sheet and the workers compare the signature. My cursive handwriting hasn't changed much since I was in school. Has the average person's signature changed that much?
Is Mr. Metcalfe trying to make me believe that Democrats recruited people who perfected the art of cursive handwriting matching a bunch of dead people who are still voting? Hogwash!
This is another concoction of crazy laws Metcalfe and the Republicans have tried to get enacted recently in order to obtain an unfair advantage in elections. The Republicans tried to change the Electoral College rules in Pennsylvania. They fought hard for the Republican gerrymandered districts. Even the most hard-core believer in voter ID should question the real motive of the Republican Party when it comes to changing election laws. It's a dangerous precedent if we allow a political party to pass voter laws where a minority of voters override the voices of the entire voting majority of the state or make voter ID laws to intentionally discourage people (Democrats) from voting.
So, Mr. Metcalfe, keep bloviating in the paper about how your only reason for keeping up this charade is to stop voter fraud. The majority of Pennsylvania's voters can see through the rhetoric you attempted to sell us. Even Gov. Tom Corbett saw through the truth and quit wasting our tax dollars fighting it.
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.