Froth Slosh B'Gosh

A Summary?

Why a summary?

Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of about 14 percent last year, his campaign said Friday while also announcing that the Republican presidential nominee had paid an average annual effective tax rate of about 20.2 percent between 1990 and 2009.

Romney made good on his pledge to release his tax returns from 2011 before the election, and went a step further than was previously anticipated in releasing a certified summary of his tax returns over a two-decade period preceding 2010.

Why release a "certified summary" for the past 20 years, instead of the actual returns?  I doubt there's anything in there showing that Romney committed tax fraud (I'm sure his tax attorneys are capable, and the IRS would be all over that if there was any "there" there.  We all know that he uses tax shelters and squirrels money away in tax havens, so finding confirmation of what we already know wouldn't be that damaging.

But there is something fishy there. Could it have anything to do with this?

Tax returns require taxpayers to state their residence address, and the Romney returns already produced, although partially redacted, state clearly that they lived in "Belmont, MA 02478" in 2012 (tax year 2011) (pdf) and 2011 (tax year 2010) (pdf):

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) – which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

For all the noise Republicans make over voter fraud, it would be absolutely fatal to his campaign if those tax returns showed he was living in California while voting in Massachusetes.  We'd have an actual, verifiable case of deliberate voter fraud, one committed by the Republican nominee.  And I suspect that is the real reason why those returns are not being released.

 

 

Judge OK's PA Voter Suppression Law

The potential disenfranchisment of hundreds of thousands of people just isn't that big of a deal.  There will be an appeal, but with the state supreme court split 3-3, I doubt such a challenge will succeed.  There is a potential for the Federal Government to step in under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but I think that is a long shot as well.

Your papers please. And no, that's not a request, in Pennsylvania, it is now a demand in order to exercise your rights as a citizen.  The erosion continues.

UPDATE:  The NYT blasts the decision:

He wrote in his ruling that requiring a government-issued photo ID card to vote “is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonsevere burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,” as if voting were equivalent to buying a six-pack of beer or driving a car....

The real reasons for voter ID laws are quite clear. The desire to dampen the Democratic vote after 2006 — and particularly in the wake of President Obama’s election — prompted six states to decide, virtually simultaneously, to pass voter ID laws. Their stated reason — combating voter fraud — is easily dismissed because there are virtually no documented cases of impersonation fraud that could be reduced with an ID card...

The voter ID requirement does not specifically single out any class or group and applies uniformly to all, he wrote. But what Republicans know, and what the judge should have realized, was that many voters won’t be able to participate in the democratic process any longer. Some won’t show up at the polls, unwilling to leap the hurdle placed before them, while others will try to vote and find their ballots rejected. This lawsuit was an opportunity to sweep away barriers to full citizenship. Judge Simpson should have placed his court on record supporting the country’s first principles.

That is the polite way of saying the judge fucked up.  Unfortunatly, Simpson isn't up for a retention vote for a decade.  By then, this absurd ruling will be forgotten.

 

The Voter Suppression Plan

Voter ID is but one component.  Timothy Noah in today's Post-Gazette outines the multifacited nefarious Republican efforts at voter suppression.

And in somewhat related news, Allegheny County Republican chair Jim Roddey is forced to apologize after telling a wildly inappropriate "joke."

PA Admits: No Voter Fraud

Oh my.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

OK, so the Commonwealth admits that voter impersonation fraud doesn't happen, there are no current investigations into such fraud, and they have no direct knowledge of fraud.

Now, what exactly, is this law supposed to prevent?

 

 

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!