Most of the time, when Republican policymakers talk about voter-ID laws, they maintain the pretense that the measures are only intended to prevent imaginary voter fraud. "No, we're not trying to disenfranchise the constituencies that traditionally vote Democratic," they say. "That's just a coincidental byproduct of our nonpartisan proposals."
But once in a while, Republicans slip up and concede what everyone already knows to be true.
Politics PA's Kelly Cernetich published this report earlier on Pennsylvania Republican Party's state committee meeting, held over the weekend.
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."
The Republicans in attendance cheered, and I suppose that's to be expected -- the disenfranchisement of traditional Democratic voters is bound to make Republicans applaud.
But but the state lawmaker's candor was a reminder that Pennsylvania's voter-ID law isn't about the integrity of the process; it's about ensuring Republican victories by rigging the game.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democratic critic of voter ID, told Cernetich, "This is making clear to everyone what Voter ID was all about. This is about one thing: disenfranchising Democratic voters and rigging elections for Republicans. When they get behind closed doors, they admit it. And that's exactly what Turzai did."
Leave a Comment:
Sorry, but a photo ID requirement is the lowest voter standard you can apply. As I understand it they are free, and if someone can't or won't qualify for one, too bad. They are either ineligible, incompetent, or unable to vote.
Pesky Constitution. I agree with Snooter424. We should ignore that old useless rag.
It's not as easy for some folks to get a photo I.D. as it should be. As to free, my friend's 80 y.o. mother was charged $30 to renew her photo I.D. even though it is "free."
Furthermore, if you are a non-driving married woman, you must not only have your birth certificate which must be the one issued by Vital Statistic in New Castle, PA, you must also show your marriage certificate - each of these certificates is an additional cost.
Then just imagine if you were married, divorced and remarried. Added to the cost is the time constraint; there is presently a 2 month backlog at the Bureau of Vital Statistics - at least there was before the new voter law.
And what does this all stop? Absolutely nothing. In PA, we show our ID when we first vote at a new polling place. After that, we go to the very same polling place until we move, where the very same poll workers are working. I tell them my name - or in my case, spell it for them - and verify my address and then I have to duplicate my signature right next to the place I last signed.
The only voter fraud this new law would stop would be impersonation. The only way for someone to impersonate me would be to know that I have not yet voted, rush to my polling place and then know my address, how to spell my name and expertly forge my signature. For what purpose? One vote? Stupid. And then I show up to vote. Oh, guess the fraud was caught!
I've been voting for more than 40 years - has not happened yet and it's not likely to happen any time soon with or without the new Voter ID law. It's way beyond toooooo stupid and extremely insulting.
Here are some FACTS pn PA voter fraud: \
http://www.rockthecapital.com/03/26/voter-fraud/
There is voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Here are some numbers to prove it.
4 = number of persons convicted of voter fraud in Pennsylvania since the year 2004, including the time when Gov. Corbett was Attorney General. All 4 cases involved people registering when not eligible.
0 = number of persons convicted of a voter pretending to be someone he or she was not, in other words, the very thing the voter ID law is supposed to prevent, since the year 2004 including the time when Gov. Corbett was Attorney General.
20,000,000 = number of votes cast in Pennsylvania since 2004. That’s 4/20,000,000 votes cast which is 1 in 5,000,000 or 0.00002% of the votes cast. For those readers who are of a betting sort, the odds of winning a state lottery are a much higher 1 in 4,000,000 or 0.00000025.
700,000 = the approximate number of Pennsylvania voters who do not have a valid PA Driver’s License who are otherwise eligible to vote. According to the Washington Post, 11 percent of all Americans lack a photo ID, including 20 percent of voters younger than 29, 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 per year, and a full quarter of all African Americans.
4 = former Pennsylvania Speaker of the House John Perzel, his brother-in-law Samuel “Buzz” Stokes, his nephew Eric Ruth, and Donald McClintock, who were recently sentenced and convicted of using public employees and other resources from the taxpayer financed House Republican technology office for political purposes.
0 = COMBINED total amount of actual jail time Samuel “Buzz” Stokes, former State House speaker John Perzel’s brother-in-law; Eric Ruth, John Perzel’s 37 year old nephew, and Donald McClintock received for using public employees and other resources from the taxpayer financed House Republican technology office for political purposes.
$10,000,000 = amount of taxpayer money convicted felon and former Pennsylvania Speaker of the House John Perzel admits to stealing from Pennsylvania taxpayers to buy sophisticated computer equipment and technology to become governor of Pennsylvania and to help fellow Republicans gets elected to the state legislature.
22 months = actual jail time convicted felon and former Pennsylvania Speaker of the House John Perzel will receive if he behaves in prison.
104 – 88. Pennsylvania House vote total for the Pennsylvania voter ID law. All Republicans except 3 voted for the bill. Every Democrat voted against it.
Worthless = the number of elections perverted by convicted felon and former Speaker of the Pennsylvania House John Perzel’s schemes.
Priceless = the number of Pennsylvania citizens who will disenfranchised by the voter ID law.
So let's accept the (false) premise of your assertion that getting a photo id is the easiest, cheapest thing in the world. Why should you have to have one to vote? There is no simply evidence that more than a few hundred fraudulent votes occur out of tens of millions cast in presidential elections, nor is there any evidence that getting a photo id would stop it.
What there is abundant evidence of is that these laws are more likely to keep Democrats from exercising a fundamental Constitutional right than Republicans, . that you guys know it and are that you are deliberately imposing these useless laws to solve an imaginary problem solely to help you steal elections by disqualifying eligible voters.
So enough with the high-minded blather. No one's buying it and you must certainly have better Republican hypocrisies to use your gag reflex suppression powers on than this one.
Shooter242, you probably should read this before you make a statement like, "As I understand it they are free, and if someone can't or won't qualify for one, too bad." Wisconsin Voter ID Law May Force 84-Year-Old Woman To Pay $200 To Get A Voter ID. You obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about.
shooter242 is voting Republican, she has no idea about anything and doesn't care about anyone but herself
It's clear to Me and anyone that simply educates themselves to the FACTS, that the Repubs/Conserves are out to disenfranchise traditional Democratic targets but requiring new i.d. measures!! If they were so interested in this "non-existent" voter fraud-why didn't they impose these new standards during the Midterm Elections or prior to that-the last 2 Presidential cycles!!! I'll tell You why-they know this Fall- they're going to lose those segments of Society; and if They can't have the Seniors, Handicapped, African Americans & students-they'll make it difficult for these factions to vote!!! Let's be sneaky about it!!!
Cost for a "simple, free" ID card in Texas is $16.00. But you have to have all the proper documentation, and all names and vital information must match. Recently I had to get a certified copy of my marriage certificate...that would bring the total to $39.00. DPS is on the NE edge of town where buses don't go. Vital statistics are downtown. Citizens in one district are 80 miles one-way from the nearest DPS location.
Now, you were saying?
Some one pays for them, they cannot be free. If the state offers them for free that means tax dollars are paying the cost. There is no free lunch and no free ID's either.
Yeah, IDs are free here... you just have to wait in line for a few hours, on a weekday, between 8 and 4. Very easy unless you work during regular working hours.
Spoken like a true ignoramous.
The minimum... unless you count the long history of voting in this country without it.
Can you think of any other hard won individual rights you'd like to see legislated away by a pack of ignorant ideologues in the name of christian nationalism?
Joe...,
Don't forget about The Magic Of The Market Place. :-/
I think that is a small stretch on your part Steve. His comment could be construed as saying that the Democrats can only win when there are illegal voters on the voter rolls. I am NOT saying that is what he actually meant, but it could be that meaning. In the same vein the quote from the Democratic lawmaker in your article- "This is making clear to everyone what Voter ID was all about. This is about one thing: disenfranchising Democratic voters - always intriques me. It seems to say that Democratic voters have a harder time meeting voter ID requirements. Yes, the elderly and poor and students tend to vote in much larger percentages for Democrats, but I always view these kind of statements as broad stereotyping of Democrat leaning voters as unable to get photo IDs. Obviously there is some truth to that, but not in such great numbers as implied.
There are a lot more people who have difficulty getting IDs than there are people who commit voter fraud.
Evelyn,
Those on the right have to know that full well, and that is exactly what they want.
Evelyn,
That is definitely true...but unless these new voter ID laws are ruled unconstitutional, maybe the best way to fight them and NOT have them disenfrancise voters is to help people get a proper ID. I mean a lot of folks work hard getting people registered, so why not go to the next step - if you are in a state that has/will have voter ID laws - and help folks that have a problem obtaining IDs? You always hear stories of people driving others to the polls ... well drive them to the DMV. If everyone has an ID, then that takes the air out of the Republican's intent.
Maybe not in PA (I don't know) but the effort to help others vote is being delivered plenty of it's own obstacles.
Where did the video go? Is there another link to it?
But how many will be made aware of this finding. Especially in PA. Once again republicans are willing to lie steal and cheat to win power. No integrity whatsoever
And the totally unprincipled supporters/apologists of the Rethuglicans will be cheering them on all the way.
Integrity? Republicans? Not since the 90s...
Come on Skip@...when there has been no evidence of voter fraud at all...it becomes clear exactly what he meant...since no evidence of any voter fraud means no evidence of any election being affected by voter fraud...your comment is really a stretch.
Fair enough bjobotts, I was just being the devils advocate since none of us (you, me and Steve Benen) really 100% know what he meant. And yes, there is very little evidence of voter fraud, but I still stand by my statement of the broad stereotyping of Democrat leaning voters as either unable or unwilling to get a photo ID.
To me, I cannot understand how an adult in today's world - regardless of age and/or economic standing - can get by without some sort of ID with their photo on it. If nothing else it could be used to identify you if you are incapacitated in some way. This would be, in my opinion, very important for elderly folks more so than other groups. Voting aside, I just think all shoud have some form of photo identification on them for emergency purposes.
Did you know that photo IDs issued through the Dept. of Veterans' Affairs are not an acceptable ID to vote?
Sigh... really? Man, I hate having to explain this. But I can't not. So here it goes:
1) Yes, life is much simpler for those of us with a valid form of ID. However, that does not mean it is impossible to live without one.
2) People forget that IDs EXPIRE. You've dealt with getting a new ID, correct? And how long did that process take you? Its not like you just call someone up and say "I need an ID," and it shows up on your doorstep. No. It takes weeks, sometimes months. Now, imagine there is an election in two weeks and your ID expired.. Guess what? You aren't voting. Guess what else? Elderly people have the most difficult and long turnaround times for IDs. Why? Because they are old and need help getting to the ID center and filling out paperwork. Guess what else? Elderly voters tend to be democratic in their decisions. Wanna know why? They've seen enough republicans in their day. (Ok, I made that last part up. But it sounds good, right?)
3) Just because you think everyone should have an ID, doesn't mean they do or that they need to.
4) This is a big one. Voting is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Possessing an ID is not. To limit that right is to limit personal freedoms granted by the constitution. By siding with those who are for Voter ID laws, you are implying it is ok to limit constitutionally-granted freedoms.
5) Why? WHY WHY WHY? If there isn't mass voter fraud.. and (as you say) there is an equal distribution between right/left of those often classified as unable to get an ID, then WHY in the flying spaghetti monster's name would republicans in EVERY STATE be trying to pass voter ID laws? It's because.. well, ill let the clip do the talking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
6) No rational person who has thought for more than a fleeting second about the issue thinks this is a good idea. Those who do think it is a good idea know what it's really for, or they have been convinced of some kind of made up voter fraud conspiracy theory that has absolutely no basis in fact or statistics.
7) You ALREADY need some form of personal identification in order to vote. The only difference is that the voter ID requires that form of ID to be specific, government-issued and produced every time. This would be the equivalent of needing to produce a photo ID every time you wanted to shoot your registered gun.
8) Are you still unclear of what Mr. Turzai meant?
Andy, you make all good points, really and I have no argument. I was definitely playing devils advocate on his statemtent only because the right is notorious to jump to conclusions on statements made like this and they almost always twist them in their favor and it just a looked a little (very little :)) like Steve was doing the same. As for IDs - yes they are difficult to replace/get, but I still think (this is just me talking) you should have an ID with a photo just for emergencies if nothing else. I really wasn't pushing here for Voter ID - I was just talking about photo IDs for....identification in emergencies. I do not know a single adult that does not have a photo ID and I do know a good number of older/elderly folks as well as students. I just find it interesting that someone does not have it. You would think that a retirement home would have an ID for their residents - and I am sure some do.
Yeah Mr. Turzai probably meant it the way Steve has it, but there is a post here today that is a contest on how "Faux News" can butcher an otherwise straightfoward headline and I just thought I would keep this blog in check so as not to go down that slippery slope of twisting the intent of a news item or comment. But yeah, most likely he meant it the way Steve presented it (90 % chance) :).
Actually, Andy, you have one error: Voting is (sadly) not a constitutional right. Well, at least not unconditionally. Your right to vote can be denied and, in many states is. You just can't deny it base on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" or gender, or age if you are 18 or older.
Technically, this means a state could deny voting based on sexual orientation. Many deny it based on criminal record or incarceration status.
This is partly true, but then you get into the murky waters of how much power should states have to do that sort of thing. And state restrictions aside, it is still a right written into the constitution and expanded through several amendments. Usually, when a state pushes to create laws that limit or otherwise reverse constitutionally granted rights, there is protest, unless there is a damn good reason for it. For some reason, and I can't for the life of me figure out why, there isn't outrage in my state of Minnesota, where we are voting on a proposed Voter ID bill this fall. Everyone's just like, "Meh. I guess it doesn't matter. Seems like it won't be a problem." That's why this whole thing is so sneaky and why it will probably pass in many states, including my own. Unfortunately.
the ID MIGHT be free; and even when it is, the states don't tell people. but, the information needed for the ID IS NOT FREE AND CONSTITUTES A POLL TAX.
And in PA, they won't give me the free voting ID if I already have a drivers license.
I think it may be time for US citizens to petition the UN for election monitoring right here in the US of A. We are all over it when this kind of thing goes on in third world countries.
I agree completely!
I have heard of thousands of cases of voter fraud but I have yet to see evidence of voter fraud. Last I checked, some kind of evidence was pretty important to substantiate a hypothesis or a theory. I'm sure it's happened but I never see the evidence I just hear douchebags like this guy complain about it. Shouldn't "corporations are people" as a legal concept be a higher priority issue in protecting "democracy"?
Someone has repressed the video.
It's OK - if the embedded version here doesn't play, it's still on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
I am 85 years old. I no longer drive. I had to get my daughter to take me down to the License place to get a new license. It took about a half a day. There is only one reason our Republican legislature passed the ID law. There is only one reason our new Republican governor signed it. It is the same reason our state used to have a poll tax. Unfortunately many people who would otherwise vote will not vote this time. What is happening to our country?
The folks in my town know me.
I verify my name and my signature every time I vote.
The only fraud committed here, is the PA legislature getting paid to dream up this nonsense.
Corbett's popularity rating is dipping, and he hasn't done squat about jobs. He's too busy playing with vaginal probes.
You folks really need to get your priorities straight, and start working to get the economy moving, not worrying about non-existent voter fraud and women's vaginas.
The Republican led house and Senate here have done NOTHING for Pennsylvania, except exert their form of fascism on the rest of us.
For those who say that getting a voting approved ID is easy and free and therefor no reason for anyone to feel disenfranchised by the new voter ID laws, let me give you my own personal story. I moved from Oregon to Michigan two years ago. Upon my arrival I made multiple inquiries into where to go to find a DMV to get an updated license and ID. Nobody could tell me where to go including the employees of the county DHS office. It took me almost a year to find out that the state of Michigan apparently doesn't have DMVs, but rather issues drivers licenses and ID cards through the Secretary of State's office. Then came the issue of finding the right Secretary of State office (not all of the offices in a given county handle ID and drivers licenses) only to find out that there apparently is NO FREE IDENTIFICATION issued to people in Michigan even for the purposes of voting (so said the nice lady behind the counter). What if you are too poor to afford the excessive fees imposed for the cost of even a basic ID card? Apparently being disabled on social security is not poor enough, even though it placed me well below the poverty line.
Can't find where to get the new ID? too bad
Can't afford the new ID? too bad
Have an opinion and legal right to vote? too bad
Luckily, Michigan doesn't have an ID requirement to vote. If you lived in Pennsylvania? Yeah, you're boned.
EDIT: Apparently Michigan has a non-strict photo ID law. Essentially, you sign an affidavit that says you are who you are, and you're good to go. So a photo ID is TECHNICALLY required... but not really.
I am 85 years old. I am no longer able to drive. I had to get my daughter to drive me to the license place to get a new license. It took almost a half a day. There is only one reason our Republican legislature passed the new ID law. There is only one reason our new Republican governor signed the bill. It is the same reason we used to have a poll tax. I have always voted and I will continue to vote. But there many people who would otherwise vote who will not vote this time. Sometimes I wonder what is happening to our country.
Talk about overreach. The Repumpkins have done nothing but the last couple years.
Again, the GOP is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. Everything I read about the Republicans tells me their side of the House should be fired, and the party sold for scrap. They're ruining my country. They will steal this election by lying and breaking the law. It's just amazing.
Planet Romney and 70 Virgins
Religion is off limits with the Obama campaign, and I salute them for that. I’ll salute them until the electoral ship has slipped entirely beneath the surface of the water as it goes down. But is it worse to discuss religion - or to hand the country over to those who would destroy our democracy and millions of lives of the poor and struggling? I’m not so sure.
Religion in this case has relevant and meaningful secular implications for the nation – discussion is not just setting religious prejudices loose and hoping for a catfight. It matters what the person with the nuclear football believes.
Romney's
belief is that he will have his OWN PLANET AND BE A GOD. HIM PERSONALLY. A GOD.
Just like radical Islamists believe they get 70 virgins. This is no
joke. Look it up, it’s among the tenets of the LDS belief system.
PLANET ROMNEY = 70 Virgins
It's pretty much the same stuff.
If this were common knowledge, how many people would
vote for the 70 virgins guy? At least a few wouldn’t – even if they
hate Obama. This is not much different than 70 virgins.
Couldn’t we please mention this in places, like, oh, Texas? We need to
shave off as many fundamentalist voters as they are shaving off elders and youth by suppressing voters.
Couldn’t we please mention this to secular voters in like, say, Grosse Pointe, West Palm Beach, Vail?
(Do secular Americans really WANT a person with his hand on The Nuclear Button who believes he will end up a god with his personal planet?
Would America want to live on Planet Romney? What would Planet Romney look like? We need to ask these questions.
Also, some of the support he's getting from Roman Catholics because of his stand
against reproductive rights might be re-thought a bit if it were common knowledge that the Virgin Mary (whom Catholics identify as holy and venerate for that virginity) does not qualify as such according to Romney. His faith includes the belief that God is a
human male who had actual, physical sex with Mary.
This might be a revelation to countless Catholics who are being directed away from Obama. They recite the phrase “The Virgin Mary” every single Sunday
together in the creed during Mass. This is a big deal to many of them.
What Family Values?
Romney has a rep as a good family values person. WHAT KIND OF FAMILY VALUES enrich one's own family by the destruction of other families?
One of Bain's projects made $100M - fine, profit is good. But $20M of that was from the eradication of pensions - they could have chosen to make $80M, rather than $100M, and left other families less harmed. Still a handsome profit. They made a choice which reveals character and personal values. This was a disqualifying character choice for a potential President of the United States.
What kind of values does this man really have? Why aren’t we SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?
Values are not just sex and substances. Values are about people and their
relationship to money, and to their companions in this life. For the Christians of America – even the fundamentalist ones – you can’t get around the fact that Jesus talked more about this than anything else. It’s not arguable
Religion can't be off limits, the ghost of Rev. Wright notwithstanding. If we don’t
shave off as many fundamentalist votes, as the young and elder votes which are
being suppressed, we will lose. The country will lose. Millions of poor will be devastated, along with the moral foundation of the country. We must do whatever we can to defeat Romney.
The alternative is terrible to contemplate.
Ha - Romney's 70 virgins trump Obama's 7....leave religion out of it.
I'm amazed that so many right wing ill-informed morons whom for one sense of misplaced reasoning or another actually agree with this @!$%# and found their way to comment on this blog. This person (Mr Turzia) should be arrested and put behind bars.
Boy they are ever letting their true motivations show! I think they think this will get them in good with white people, the only constituency they apparently care about.
Oh, wait, white men -- the women -- I mean if they can't get their birth certificate with maiden name and marriage certificate with married name they are out of luck.
Let's see what happens if the same constraints are placed on carrying a gun that are placed on voting.
You do have to pass a background check to buy a firearm in Florida. Some dealers charge for processing the application. There's also a 72 hour waiting period.
http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Gun-in-Florida
So now all we need are birth (and marriage, and divorce) certificate, current address up to date, recent picture ID, and several other things that vary from State to State.
It's better to take people at face value than to try to perform mind-reading about their intentions.
This TRMS report implies that there's an unspoken conspiracy to disenfranchise legitimate voters. But if we take Republicans at face value that these measures are meant to prevent what they genuinely believe is the problem of widespread voter fraud, then Mike Turzai's comment does make sense, and doesn't necessarily expose corrupt intent.
Members of the GOP believe that their vision of governance is best, therefore in a fair election they should always win. The only way they don't always win must be that the election isn't fair. They can't conceive of the possibility that the majority of legitimate voters does not support the GOP. Ergo, the difference must be illegitimate voters; voter fraud must be rampant.
The real problem with the GOP is that they make policy decisions in disregard of actual facts and evidence. They show this in their climate change denial, their demonization of immigrants, demonization of gays, going to war in Iraq, paranoia about gun control, and many other cases. No wonder they also hate science -- they don't understand the value of testable, evidence-based analysis to produce knowledge and guide decisions.
This sitting congress is so corrupt that it makes 'The Godfather' characters as well as the Mafia itself look like choirboys.
Poll tax by proxy still smells like polecat, a term I believe refers to a skunk. Although I have only smelled a few in my time, I know one when I smell it.
Well you elect this moron, vote them out.
Here is a thought: What do you say we err on the side of a US Citizen's right to vote. Make it a criminal offense to interfere with that right. If someone should be allowed to vote and is prevented from doing so by an official or employer or even a street thug then that official etc. has committed a crime.
Shift the burden of proof where it belongs. If election officials suspect someone of not being legible to vote, fine stop them from voting, but those officials had better be right because if they are not they have broken the law and will be punished.
That's what provisional ballots are for when officials suspect an undocumented voter. That way ,they won't deny anyone's right. The thugs don't have that, but they got Eric Holder when they get caught.
I would suspect that the numbers of actual fraudulent voters is low because officials challenge VERY FEW people. It's a matter of semantics. Until everyone nuts-up and agrees to some sort of proof of citizenship for voting, this argument will wage on.