Election 2012

No Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania, But Voter ID Anyway

The ACLU and the NAACP filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania for its restrictive Voter ID law, which was passed in order to prevent what must be a widespread voter fraud issue in the state.

But the state has no evidence of any fraud at all, and Pennsylvania admitted it in a written statement:

"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,” the statement reads.

According to the agreement, the state “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

This goes back to what I wrote last week. You're more likely to be hit by lightning than to find a case of voter fraud. The Bush Justice Department in 2007 determined that voter fraud didn't exist. There were only 13 cases nationwide from 2000-2010. Of course Pennsylvania wasn't able to come up with a single example!

So why, then, did they pass the Voter ID law? Obviously to elect more Republicans including Mitt Romney while preventing 758,000 registered Democrats (in PA alone) from casting a ballot.

  • Zen Diesel

    I have been arguing back and forth all day with one of my friends who have been Fox indoctrinated. This is one of his dumb ass quotes.

    “The mere fact that that they have no confirm cases does not mean it is not happening. Remember just case u don’t see the tree fall in the forest doesn’t mean it was never standing”

    So according to his logic, just because you can’t find fraud you should make a law just in case. It’s like some our decent friends have been replaced with pod people, because they just aint making any damn sense with their arguments.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Then how can it be legal?!?! Shouldn’t a district judge be able to issue an immediate injunction?

    • muselet

      Alas, the Supremes held (6-3) in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that the lack of in-person voter fraud does not make requiring government-issued photo IDs an unreasonable burden on the right to vote. A district judge would get slapped down, hard, for issuing an injunction.


      • mrbrink

        That was such a ludicrous decision, but a really great follow up reply to IrishGrrrl’s question.

        These laws are nothing more than a voting deterrent meant only to thin the herd and it’s plainly obvious.

        If the lack of in-person voter fraud does not make requiring government-issued photo IDs an unreasonable burden on the right to vote, then a reasonable transition period in which to implement these laws and educate the public should be the current legal challenge. Because if there’s no one committing voter fraud, what’s the hurry to get them put in place post-haste? We all know the answer to that, though.

        Anytime anyone tampers with the vote they should be arrested. That includes non-existent voters trying to vote illegally, but especially the state officials who are fast tracking these restrictive laws like their lives depend on it, especially in the laughable absence of evidence.

        People should be more skeptical of their representatives who are making it their goal in life to place more burdens on their democracy, as an American. It’s about time Governor Corporations have some burdens placed on them.

        When they come for the vote, they’re coming for the whole fucking thing.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          A-fucking-men….I posted that exact same sentiment yesterday, “This is how Democracy dies”