governor vetoed the law and the legislature overroad that, changing the legislation slightly, they went to the justice department for approval. it s now pending. pennsylvania has one of the most restrictive voter id laws in the country. that new law that was passed by republican legislature is fought on two fronts. yesterday, we learned the justice department is investigating whether the law disenfranchises voters. if the answer is yes, there department would have to sue the state. pennsylvania is not covered by the voting rights act or the special provisions leading to heightened scrutiny. fighting on the second front begins tomorrow. the aclu is sueing the state on behalf of a 93-year-old voter. she s a great, great grandmother who doesn t have the requisite id. as part of the case, we learned today, the state admits and i m quoting them here, there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in pennsylvania and the
well, as you mentioned earlier, there are certain states that are covered by section five of the voting rights act. those states have a different set of parameters they have to meet. pennsylvania is not one of those statsz, but pennsylvania is covered under section two of the voting rights act. the entire country is. so the department of justice has the ability to look at those states and to insure that they are indeed meeting all of the laws and that they are not discriminating in any way against any individuals with respect to voting. so given that, pennsylvania does indeed have to meet those requirements under section two and they have to insure there s no disparate impact impacting any of the voters in the states and the voters are treated equally. you have studied this extensi extensively. is there a case to be made that these laws over time would disproportionately affect minority voters or other groups?
statsz, but pennsylvania is covered under section two of the voting rights act. the entire country is. so the department of justice has the ability to look at those states and to insure that they are indeed meeting all of the laws and that they are not discriminating in any way against any individuals with respect to voting. so given that, pennsylvania does indeed have to meet those requirements under section two and they have to insure there s no disparate impact impacting any of the voters in the states and the voters are treated equally. you have studied this extensive extensively. is there a case to be made that these laws over time would disproportionately affect minority voters or other groups? we have done a couple reports you re probably familiar with. one we did in the fall that outlined all of the various voter law changes throughout the country. and what our report showed is that the individuals, the groups
underlying drive and motivation of the law? it means there s no there there. when you go to court, we all know you have to have evidence that supports you claims. in pennsylvania, the court is going to want to know what is the evidence that the state has that there is indeed a problem with in-person voter fraud. by way of the stipulation, the state is basically saying to the court, we have no such evidence. so that will greatly benefit the plaintiffs in this case. we don t know what the outcome will be, but this will benefit the plaintiffs. for 20 years we haven t had laws like this one that need to be challenged, but is there an understood bar that states have to clear? we do have any sense what the court will be looking at here? well, as you mentioned earlier, there are certain states that are covered by section five of the voting rights act. those states have a different set of parameters they have to meet. pennsylvania is not one of those
today when he speaks in the white house rose garden. he s going to be calling for an extension of tax cuts only for people earning $250,000 a year or less. so the president is totally committed to getting rid of the tax cut for those making $250,000 or above. let s make progress on our spending by doing away with tax cuts for people that quite frankly don t need them and that haven t worked and have them pay their fair share? that a yes or no. the president is completed committed to this. 100% committed to this. i heard this before. dan lothian is here. a couple of years ago we were having the same discussion, the president did extend tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, sounds like this is going to be a high priority for this campaign/white house right now. the campaign is launching a major push in key battle ground states in new hampshire there will be a press conference with middle class families and other events in colorado, florida, and nevada involving sma