Froth Slosh B'Gosh

Voter ID Faces Court Challenge

And so it begins....

Groups opposed to requiring photo identification at the polls plan to file a lawsuit today in Commonwealth Court seeking to prevent the law from taking full effect at the November elections. The lawsuit will name about 10 people who lack the documents needed to obtain an acceptable form of identification, said three attorneys involved in the suit....

David Gersch, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the state cannot justify the new ID requirements without demonstrating that voter fraud is taking place.

"In order to take away somebody's right to vote, there needs to be a real problem they're addressing," he said. "The state hasn't shown that there's a problem with people showing up at the polling place and saying they're somebody who they're not."

Supporters of the voter ID law, including Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele, have described it as a common-sense effort to protect the integrity of the voting process.

You may recall Carol Aichele from awhile back, when she said this in defense of Pennsylvania's Voter ID law:

"The reason people don't have confidence is because they think there's fraud," she said. "This would eliminate or dramatically reduce anyone thinking that there are people voting illegally in Pennsylvania."

Ms. Aichele said her office knows of reports of voter fraud in Pennsylvania but has no overall measure of its occurrence.

And yet to my knowledge, Aichele, or anyone else supporting this law, has provided a single instance of fraud that this law would prevent.

Adventures In Voting

SO I was asked for a photo ID at the polls yesterday. On principle, I refused. I was handed a notice stating that I would be required to show a photo ID in November, and it listed the acceptable forms of ID. Interestingly, my government issued voter ID card isn't acceptable (no photo). What I also found interesting was that I could refuse to show photo ID and still be able to cast a provisional ballot. I'd then have to go to the elections office at the county courthouse within six days and show one of the approved forms of ID, or affirm that I am who I say I am in order to have my ballot counted. Say what?? Affirm?? What exactly does that mean? Lets go to Dictionary.com:
af·firm
   [uh-furm] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1.
to state or assert positively; maintain as true: to affirm one's loyalty to one's country; He affirmed that all was well.

2.
to confirm or ratify: The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

3.
to assert solemnly: He affirmed his innocence.

4.
to express agreement with or commitment to; uphold; support: to affirm human rights.

verb (used without object)
5.
Law .
a.
to state something solemnly before a court or magistrate, but without oath.

b.
to ratify and accept a voidable transaction.

c.
(of an appellate court) to determine that the action of the lower court shall stand.

Oh my! No photo ID required! Now isn't affirming our identity what we've been doing all along when we sign the voter card at the polls? Why is it necessary to make this affirmation at the courthouse before a bureaucrat who likely doesn't know me, but I can't make this affirmation at the polls, where all the poll workers know me? What is this law supposed to prevent anyway? The only thing I can't think of is to prevent someone from impersonating another at the polls, a situation that rarely, if ever, happens. SO, other than throwing a roadblock before people who don't have the appropriate ID, what, exactly, is the point?

What Does This Acutally Accomplish Again?

So, Pennsylvania now has a voter ID law.  Why?  What does this law prevent?  How many cases of voter fraud are there?  The only type of fraud this would prevent is someone trying to vote under another person's name, and how many times has that happened?  In his column today, Tony Norman notes that there have been just four, count 'em, four cases of voter fraud litigated over the past 4 years, and I bet none of those cases involve someone trying to impersonate another voter.

I've been voting in the same ward for some 15 years.  The poll workers know me, my wife, and our daughter.  If someone tried to go there and pretend they were me, they'd be caught right away.

Just imagine how difficult it is to pull off this kind of fraud.  First, you have to decide its worth risking prison to illegaly cast a vote.  Then you have to figure out who you intend to impersonate, find out what polling place their registered at, show up, hope that no one recognizes that you're not who you say you are, and show up before the actual voter you're impersonating does. 

When actual fraud occurs, its usually along the lines of registration fraud, typically someone ineligible to vote trying to register, and perhaps succeeding.  And let us say that this sometimes happens.  For example, a legal alien improperly registers to vote.  Now, how will this "voter ID" law prevent that person from casting a ballot?  It doesn't. 

This law isn't about protecting against fraud.  Its about, as the P-G correctly notes, trying to throw barriers in the way of people who are most likely to cast a ballot for a Democrat.

A Solution In Search Of A Problem

Can anyone point to a single example of voter fraud in Pennsylvania that this law will prevent?

Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele said in an interview before the Senate debate that the legislation would build confidence among citizens that elections are conducted fairly. "The reason people don't have confidence is because they think there's fraud," she said. "This would eliminate or dramatically reduce anyone thinking that there are people voting illegally in Pennsylvania." Ms. Aichele said her office knows of reports of voter fraud in Pennsylvania but has no overall measure of its occurrence.

Citations please, Ms Aichele!  What evidence do you have that people do not have confidence in the electoral process because they think there's fraud?  What evidence do you have that "people" think there's illegal voting going on?  How many people think this?  Who are they?  You also claim knowledge of "reports of voter fraud."  How many reports?  From where?  Did your office, or any other law enforcement agency investigate those reports?  Were the reports founded or unfounded?

Until you can prodce substantial evidence that voter fraud is occuring on a widespread scale, there is no legitimate justification for this law.

 

Denying Veterans The Right To Vote

That's where these voter ID laws are going.  Unintentionally, of course, but when you throw needless barriers in the way of voting, this is what will happen, and is happening. 

“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.”

Leave Poor Newt Alone!

After all, it was just a mistake.

Had the same thing been carried out by a worker for the now-defunct ACORN, Republicans --- and even Newt Gingrich --- would have called it massive "voter fraud." But the 1,500 acts of fraud, by Gingrich's own admission, were carried out by a worker hired by his campaign, so it seems the media have barely noticed it...

In late December, after Gingrich had failed to turn in enough valid signatures to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, he was caught on video tape telling a supporter in Iowa that the reason for the failure was due to a campaign worker who created 1,500 fraudulent signatures.

"We turned in 11,100 --- we needed 10,000 --- 1,500 of them were by one guy who, frankly, committed fraud," Gingrich is seen and heard saying in video originally aired by CNN.

The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives downplayed the incident, by explaining to the woman that the entire affair was "just a mistake," after they had "hired somebody who turned in false signatures."

As the Brad Blog points out, this is the same sort of thing ACORN was raked over the coals for for years, eventually leading to the dissolution of the organization, even though no one was able to show that anyone, ever illegally cast a vote due to ACORN's registration efforts.  But in Gingrich's case, its "just a mistake."

The AG's office in Virginia is investigating, but seeing how that office is headed up by a far right whackaloon, I doubt anything will come of it.  After all, IOKIYAR!

VOTER FRAUD!!

And nary an Acorn in sight.

A jury from Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis, deliberated for 13 hours before convicting Republican Secretary of State Charlie White on six felony charges. Among other things, White was accused of lying about his address on voter registration forms.

Indiana law does not allow felons to hold statewide office, and Daniels quickly appointed White's chief deputy, Jerry Bonnet, as interim secretary of state. But the governor said he was holding off on naming a permanent replacement because a judge could reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, allowing White to regain the office.

Lets see, the guy who was convicted of actual voter fraud could still hold an office overseeing elections because he's eligible to hold the office if the charge is reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor?  That might make sense if the charge was unrelated to the duties of the office, but this looks like another example of IOKIYAR.