Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Justice, Media, Politics

Et Tu Pennslyvania?

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

I guess I should not be surprised when I read of certain states trying to “cleanse” the voting rolls under the guise of voter fraud.  However, I was saddened to read that the State of Pennsylvania was joining the growing list of so-called Red and some not so Red states that are taking steps to disenfranchise voters prior to the November National elections.  The State of Pennsylvania is poised to possibly disenfranchise almost 10 percent of its voting population.  “Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law, which will take effect for the first time this November, may prevent 758,939 otherwise eligible voters, who do not currently have an acceptable ID, from voting.” Think Progress

Most of the states who are embarking on these attempts to reduce the number of legal citizens able to vote in the elections seem to come from the states that claim that they are merely taking steps to stop voter fraud.  Florida has been in the news lately with Gov. Scott’s attempts to purge the voting rolls and I recently wrote about an attempt in Georgia to prevent absentee ballots from being sent and received in time for them to be counted in the November elections.  These absentee ballots would have an especially dramatic impact on deployed military members right to have their votes counted.  Now, Pennsylvania has joined the fray and is attempting to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania from the almost invisible crime wave known as voter fraud!

Just what kind of photo identification is required to be able to vote in Pennsylvania?  “The new law requires all voters to show photo ID such as a driver’s license or nondriver PennDOT photo ID, U.S. passport, student identification card with expiration date, current military identification, or ID card issued to government employees.”  The Morning Call  This kind of requirement sounds reasonable on its face, but when you look deeper it is arguable that this requirement is intended to prevent likely Democratic demographics from voting.  “Philadelphia’s top election official, City Commission Chair Stephanie Singer, told the newspaper that the figures reinforced her view that the law was intended to decrease voter turnout in the predominantly Democratic city. She said Philadelphia “is hit much harder by this than any of the other counties.” The Morning Call

The leader in the Pennsylvania House recently confirmed that the Voter ID law will allow Gov. Romney to win Pennsylvania in November. “House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.  “We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.  “Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”  Politics PA

If I understand Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Turzai correctly, the only voters who are voting illegally in Pennsylvania are voters likely to vote for President Obama.  Am I missing something or did Turzai just admit that the Pennsylvania Voter ID law is a political gimmick designed to prevent likely Democratic voters from being able to vote.  Indeed, similar voting restrictions in Wisconsin were recently struck by a judge who claimed that their Voter ID laws violated the State Constitution.

“According to Wisconsin Judge David Flanagan, they violate the Wisconsin Constitution too. In an order issued yesterday, Flanagan temporarily suspended his state’s voter ID law and strongly hinted that he will eventually strike the law down permanently.  As Flanagan’s opinion explains, the Wisconsin Constitution provides particularly strong protections for the right to vote — “[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district,” regardless of whether or not they have an ID. Moreover, the state supreme court has interpreted this constitutional provision very robustly. “Voting is a constitutional right,” according to the Wisconsin supremes, “any statute that denies a qualified elector the right to vote is unconstitutional and void.”  Think Progress

Are these state laws that are being passed to curb so-called voter fraud just an excuse to prevent legal voters from exercising their right to vote?  If voter fraud is a real problem, where are the statistics and evidence to prove it?  In Ohio, a study found that the instances of voter fraud was infinitesimal.  “Despite his belief, representatives from the Board of Elections, the League of Women Voters, and the former Secretary of State office “have never even heard of one” instance of voter impersonation in Ohio. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004 out of 9,078,728 votes case — “a rate of 0.00004%.”  Think Progress

At least 22 states have taken steps to restrict the right to vote and the Justice Department is becoming engaged in the “discussion”, but will it be too little too late for the millions nationwide who may lose their right to vote?   Would the Voting Rights Act survive the Roberts Court if any of the challenges to these Voter ID laws make it to the Supreme Court? Is there a voter fraud problem in this country?  Are people confusing the term vote fraud with voter fraud?

To me, the right to vote is an integral part of my right of free speech because it is the time when my government has to listen to what I say!  What do you think?

Additional references:  Think Progress; The Brennan Center; ACLU

132 thoughts on “Et Tu Pennslyvania?”

  1. @bettykath ” while the corporate run computers count the votes.”

    Over the past decade or so I have been shocked at the number of elected officials who have touted electronic voting as a solution to voting problems. For a while there were even suggestions to have voting over the internet. To understand the folly of that suggestion one only has to consider that banks and even the DOD cannot protect their networks from determined hackers.

    The difference between an electronic vote and a vote conducted with paper ballots is this. To steal a vote with paper ballots it takes 3 to 6 strong men with hand carts and a box truck. To steal an election based on electronic vote it only takes a precocious student with a computer. Oh, and the student can usually remove all traces of any interference.

    Nothing, no system if fool proof. All we an hope to do is to increase the opportunity cost of stealing an election. Paper ballots have high opportunity cost in terms of personnel, time, and access. The opportunity cost for electronic voting is vanishingly small.

  3. Thanks, Lottakatz. I can see there might be some problems for some people. Now. Here in AZ, at the time our voter registration is completed, we are sent a quasi-laminated voter registration card with our pertinent info and our precinct number. I’ve never had to show my registration to vote, but I always have it with me. In AZ, if you don’t have a drivers licence, there is a state photo ID you can get for around $8.00. Personally, I am one of those people who finds the idea of having to prove who I am insulting. However, given the Republican’ts past history with election theft on such a large scale, perhaps it’s not such a bad idea to have to show some form of ID. Methinks it could act as insurance BOTH ways.

  5. Idealist: “As you say. But isn’t it a bit late? DOJ should have injunctions already filed in the 19 (?) states.”

    I’ve been asking that for quite awhile. It’s being left up to organizations like the ACLU. It may be a matter of standing but if the ACLU can find citizens that have been negatively impacted surely the DOJ can. They should have been all over this when if first started. They seem to be sticking to a couple of states that DOJ has pre-clearance authority over based or the Voting Rights Act. If they’ve moved beyond that I missed the move. I would welcome being corrected on that point. DOJ is so late to the game it is ridiculous.

  6. Feemeister: “OH HOW COOL”

    LOL, yes, we love that feature and use it A LOT.

    Good vid too, thanks. Some of us here hate the HAVA. Bradblog does a very good blog on voting and has an enormous amount of info on HAVA and the horror they are capable of in his (Brad Freedman’s) archives.

  8. Kraaken, My father opened a bank account before you needed a photo ID and stayed with that bank for 30+ years. When he got too disabled to drive his drivers licence lapsed. No ID. Now he didn’t have to worry because the nursing home he ended up living at was a voting location and there wasn’t a requirement to have a photo ID exclusively, he could use his bank statement. Missouri has liberal ID requirements- the states being discussed do not. In one of them I heard recently, it was proposed that a copy of a photo ID was to be required to be mailed with an absentee ballot but that provision of the proposed law did not pass.

    Same for my husband, his drivers licence lapsed because he doesn’t drive. If he had to have a photo ID to vote with an absentee ballot he would be in serious trouble because just getting to a licencing bureau for an ID would have to be done in a specialized van and cost well over 100$ And he would have to get a copy of his birth cert from the state, another 15$. Just getting somewhere to get a copy of the ID to send along would likewise be a major endeavour (if there isn’t someone to do it) if the copy of ID with absentee ballots becomes a provision in these laws.

  10. I don’t understand this. Here where I live (in Florida) I have a voter registration, and am legal to vote. Isn’t that what everyone has to do? And if they don’t, aren’t they ineligible? I thought it was all pretty cut and dry. I didn’t think anyone else could vote. (Ok, ok, I know dead people voted for LBJ and all, never figured out how they did that either!)

    Just in case ya’ll missed it, I LOVED this youtube. It’s a computer programmer testifying as to how he was hired to develop a program to have the voting machines show the results you want, with zero traceability. That was not shocking to me at all. What WAS shocking, was who hired him to do it! The speaker of the house of representatives in the Florida Legislature. I do not understand why this did not blow up into international news. But apparently it never did (not sure why; there were enough cameras filming the testimony).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc

    (Sorry, I don’t know how to insert the youtube here.)

    So to me, all this election talk is definitely to throw us off of issues they do not want us to be concerned with. It matters not who votes, or whether they’re legal or not. The election is already in the bag. So my vote is that they DO want us thinking about the elections instead of something else. I don’t know if it’s banks, feds, economy, Monsanto, or what. But it definitely is something.

  11. If you are a legal resident of Sweden, you have a personal ID number. Date of birth + serial number.
    For ex: YYYY-MM-DD-SSSS, the SSSS being assigned in order of birth registration on that day.

    I got a driver’s license. The bank is another source.
    Others are assisted by govenment agencies open 5 of 7 days a week in all cities. Simple. Open sesame for everything. My nationality is registered and only Swedes vote in national. All others can in their communal elections.

    They even send out voting cards, while not necessary to vote, are a nice reminder to puff out your chest and do your duty. Almost 90 per cent do so.

    Simple.

    In the bible they went to be tax registered. Ridiculous, it would have only required a man to do it, but that kinda messes up the story.

    Point? The IRS here is the mainstay of help to the citizens, then comees community agencies, and lastly the health system—-in terms of citizen contact hierarchy.

  13. ID, no, but my ‘other half’ is. However, good point, and I have heard that before. To me, it all comes back to the question about having a bank account, etc. ID had to be shown to open a bank account and the banks (at least here in AZ) are quite specific about the type of ID they accept.

  14. Kraaken,

    Are you Norwegian with that name?

    Just for arguing: Take the elder. Quite a few vote at their institutions where they live. How do they acquire an ID?

  15. Rafflaw,

    As you say. But isn’t it a bit late? DOJ should have injunctions already filed in the 19 (?) states.

    You are the lawyer, you tell me. To action now would be hindered by the current state election apparatii. National dates are unbreachable or ???

    If the national election can be delayed due to pending judicial actions, then we might end up in SCOTUS again.

    Just speculating. But coup opinion stands I feel.

  16. I suppose the one problem I have with this whole “voter fraud” situation is this: Whenever I take a check to the bank, the first thing the teller wants to see is my driver’s licence or another form of state/government issued ID. If I open a bank account, ditto. If I rent an apartment, ditto, etc. The argument I hear most often against requiring ID from voters is that poor people and minorities don’t HAVE these forms of ID. Yet they manage to have bank accounts, cash checks, have apartments, etc. If they don’t have IDs, what do they use? Even if, as one of my friends pointed out, welfare/SSI and such are now direct deposited to one’s account, they had to have ID to open an account in the first place. Don’t get me wrong here; I believe that these laws are definitely an attempt to keep eligible voters off the rolls thereby handing the Republicants another election. I just don’t understand why something as simple as presenting your ID in exchange for a ballot would be SO unacceptable.

  17. Must tell you folks here a little Mitt Romney inside family history.

    My friend in Tucson has a grandpa who went to school with a Romney ancestor in Mexico (Sonora). Since the Romney pater familias had emigrated to Mexicon from the UTAH territory, they were not US citizens. On re-entry when the revolution fracas caused many to flee, then pappa George and the children were all illegal immigrants.

    George later ran for President in the 40’s it is said, after Congress had made him legally OK.

    This infamously likens the Obama birther shoutings.

    Is Mitt legal? Or not?

    BTW, her cousin Ruben is still running, for his sisters, part of what was, before splitting, the biggest ranch in NA in Sonoral, Mexico, bigger than the King ranch, whatever that is. Sometimes sisters are smarter than brothers, they did him out of the legacy for the most part. I could name the spread, but won’t.

    We could eventually bring up photos and docs confirming this. But it depends on what Congress did for George.

  18. Jill, I mean ID, the DOJ has instituted legal action in Florida and South Carolina and I would expect more to follow.

  19. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Let us note that on this eve, the JT members, without ID cards shown, have realized that this will be even more corrupt since SCOTUS decided the presidential election.

    We talk of coups, we talk of many subjects here. But this appears to the ultimate, the most outrageous usurpation since TJ talked of it.

    But here are the conspirators usurping power. Can we
    regain it?

    Did not the Obama side see this coming? Where is the DoJ? Where are the suits? Where are the protests? It is indecently quiet on the Obama side. He is conceding the race, it would seem. Hia record is Republican, his extensions of Georges tax break for the rich, his bailing out of Wall Street, his obsequities to WS, etc etc.

    He promised change. And looks like we will get it.

    Color me Jill for the moment. This time Dewey will win.

Comments are closed.