The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson gets on his favorite hobbyhorse today when he claims again in his column that voter ID laws are nothing more than a manifestation of racism. But in doing so, he demonstrates either his ignorance or his partisanship. Robinson and other liberals have long alleged that Republican support for laws intended to curb voter fraud are simply a way of suppressing the black vote for Democrats. To back this up, he seized on a statement made by Mike Turzai, the Republican Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, in which he said this about the state voter ID law passed by the GOP last year: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.” Robinson represents this comment as giving away the game in which suppression of the black vote will steal Pennsylvania for the GOP as many inner city blacks don’t have driver’s licenses or a photo ID to present at the polls.
Robinson doesn’t mention that any voter can get a free photo ID from the state if they ask for one. But his recitation of statistics about those who don’t already have proof of identity leaves out a far more significant number that influenced the Pennsylvania legislature to pass the bill: 100 percent. That’s the percentage of registered voters who voted at a number of Philadelphia voter precincts in the last several elections. Indeed, as Republicans in the state capital pointed out during the debate about the voter ID law, in many parts of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, voter turnout in contested elections routinely exceeds 100 percent of registered voters. But because the Democrats control the local elections board that supervises voting in the city, there is no accountability for this obvious fraud. If it is enforced, the voter ID law may make this rather flagrant method of cheating a bit more difficult this year.
That’s the problem with the complaints made by Robinson and Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the liberal establishment about voter ID laws. They keep telling us there is no such thing as election fraud in the United States, a point Robinson makes again today in his column. But in Pennsylvania, to seize on the example Robinson thinks is so damning, the Democrats and the unions have always been able to manufacture as many votes as they need to swing a state that otherwise leans to the Republicans. That’s what Turzai was alluding to when he said the voter ID law he helped pass would help Mitt Romney.
Romney may or may not win the Keystone State this November. Polls still show him trailing. But if Pennsylvania Democrats are no longer able to turn out voters in parts of the city where the votes cast exceed the number of registered voters, then Republicans may have a fighting chance to take the state.
Robinson works in Washington, so the dirty little secret about the way Democrats have often gained an edge in Pennsylvania politics may be news to him. But as corrupt as Philadelphia may be — and it is a city whose political culture has long been more akin to the typical urban machine cliché of the early and mid-20th century than just about any other large metropolitan area in the country — it is hardly the only place in America where politicians cheat. As I’ve noted twice in the past week, New York Congressman Charles Rangel may have won a primary against a Hispanic challenger by cooking the numbers via various methods including having the election board collude with his campaign.
If there is a possibility that legitimate registered voters won’t be allowed to vote because they don’t have driver’s licenses or another photo ID then the state has a responsibility to make sure they can get those easily. Pennsylvania has done that, but Robinson ignores it in order to make his partisan point about racism. On the other hand, it’s time for Robinson and other liberals to stop pretending that voter fraud is a myth.
Unless Robinson is prepared to tell us how it is that Philadelphia Democrats are able to produce more than 100 percent of registered voters in precincts in which the turnout is generally miniscule anytime other than an election in which the Democrats need a huge margin without resorting to fraud, then it’s time for him to pipe down. We have other things to worry about in America besides corruption. But it is an all too real problem in contemporary politics, and voter ID is one way to keep political cheaters from gaming elections.
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson is a liar supporting illegal voting. What has the requirement of an ID for voting to do with denying blacks the vote? Nothing. Photo IDs are required for many things, and to require them for voting is an excellent way to prevent voter fraud. But perhaps Eugene Robinson supports voter fraud.
Judy, there is no evidence of voter fraud. No need for this law. The people this law will affect are largely democrats.
So William Penn's planned town is like Chicago where citizens concerned about democratically participating in choosing their leaders vote early and often. And we know who runs Chicago.
But in doing so, [Robinson] demonstrates either his ignorance or his partisanship. n n nWhy need this be an either/or proposition? It has been clear for many years that Robinson is both ignorant (more to the point, stupid) AND partisan.
I live in Texas, which has a voter ID law — now under attack by Holder. I don't understand the sound and fury. When I fly out of Houston Hobby Airport, I have to show an ID (I take along my passport and my Texas Driver's License). I'm for a uniform identity card that everybody has, but since the states have the power to determine who votes, the Texas law (like the Wisconsin, PA, IN, etc) is OK by me.
maybe Philly has such high voter compliance because of those helpful New Black Panther Party fellows with the jackboots and billy clubs. I know seeing them would encourage ME to get out and vote! n nbut seriously folks: n nEric Holder gave a speech to the NAACP yesterday where he noted (with great contempt) that a concealed-carry license qualifies as voter ID, but a student ID card does not. the trained seals in the audience dutifully applauded and laughed. what Holder didn't bother to mention was that there's a good reason for the difference. student IDs do not generally list a permanent voting address, so it's especially easy for the possibility of fraud, or even honest confusion. but the way he spun it, he made it sound like those NRA-loving, bitter-clinging, typical white people were showing preference to "their own." n nthey've decided to ride this hobbyhorse (great metaphor Jonathan) all the way to November. let's all be prepared. n
Maybe so in small local fights, but when barely 50.1% of the national electorate can rouse itself to go and vote at all, I think the issue of voter ID is a sideshow.
"in many parts of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, voter turnout in contested elections routinely exceeds 100 percent of registered voters." n nYou are misreading the article you cited as support for this. The article says: "a number of city divisions in last year’s primary election somehow reported more ballots cast on electronic voting machines than voters who signed in." That does NOT mean that more than 100% of voters registered in a precinct voted. What it means, to take a numerical example, is that, in a precinct with, say, 500 registered voters, 100 signed in to vote, but the machines had, say, 105 votes on them at the end of day. n nThe source of that problem is both obvious and innocuous — the poll workers forgot to have 5 voters sign the poll books. That is neither an example of fraud, nor a problem that requiring voters to show ID at the polls will prevent. n
"so the dirty little secret about the way Democrats have often gained an edge in Pennsylvania politics may be news to him" n nSeriously…. wow. This is getting disgusting to the point of making me want to vomit. Repeatedly Republicans point to voter fraud as being some terrible nation-wide issue… yet there have only been 400 cases of it in the last TEN YEARS. n nNot one Republican can prove this is an issue. You seriously believe so many elections, possibly the entire state of Pennsylvania is being stolen from the Republicans explicitly because of voter fraud. Yet even with such massive fraud, no proof exists, no arrests? When called out on this massive accusation, Republicans misrepresent the truth, or use anecdotal evidence to make a case for voter fraud (…yeah I read somewhere or was told by some guy that someone did….). As a perfect example your "proof" here simply does not say what you think it does. n n"in many parts of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, voter turnout in contested elections routinely exceeds 100 percent of registered voters." n nNo, it does NOT say this. Instead it says 105 votes were recorded, 100 voters signed in. How this happened is anyone's guess. Of course it could have been fraud… bad fraud if it was since it stands out like a sore thumb. More likely this was a case of simple human error. So based on this we have a statewide law that will prohibit 9% of registered voters from voting if they so wish. You honestly don't see a problem with this? n nThe question any sane person asks, is why? Why are you doing this, what reason could you possibly have to create such an imaginary issue? Are you blinded by what you want to see? n nThis is why the questions about racism exist. About wanting to exclude the 9% that may happen to be poor or black. n nAnd when I look at the comments made by Mike Turzai, what is a logical person supposed to think? “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" n nWhat can he mean… either he's saying the only reason Romney would lose PA is via massive voter fraud, for which there has been no proof given. Or he means they're going to keep as many people without ID's from voting, and I really hope he didn't mean that. n nIt's beyond ironic that you're accusing the Democrats of cheating, can't logically prove it to a neutral party, then respond with what could be considered cheating. Republicans need to be better than this. n nThis is exactly what I felt over the Sandusky issue. I didn't want to believe such a massive coverup could have occurred, that people could have been this heartless to those poor children. That Joe Paterno could have done something like this. When so many people called for his head I gave him the benefit of the doubt until evidence proved otherwise. Now we know the truth, and I don't feel bad at all about giving him that benefit of the doubt. This is what it means to BE an American. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent but we think you're guilty, we just can't prove it so we're going to change the law.
One voting division posts impossible results n nWait ‘til Rush Limbaugh hears about this! n nPreliminary vote counts drawn from Philadelphia voting machines show one division in the southwest section of the city where more people voted for President – 245 votes total – than the number registered to vote, just 211 people. An unbelievably high turnout rate of 116 percent! n nMore evidence of Philadelphia vote fraud? Not likely. n nA closer look at the situation reveals that the hyper-active voters in the 47th division of the 40th ward voted in the same polling place, the Paschallville Library at 6942 Woodland Ave., as the 33rd division. And in the 33rd division, the recorded turnout was among the lowest in the city, 166 votes for president out of 472 registered voters, or 35 percent. n nWhat happened? The poll workers at the library switched voting machines when they set up their Election Day operations. Every voting machine in the city was set up in advance to handle voters from a particular division. But on Election Day at the library, when the poll workers were setting up their tables and machines to check voters in, they sent 33rd division voters to vote on the 47th division’s machine, and vice versa. n nCombining votes from the two divisions, there were 411 votes cast for President among 683 registered voters, a turnout rate of 60 percent – exactly the same figure as the turnout citywide. n nCity commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, said the poll workers at the library realized on Election Day that they had switched machines and notified city election officials of the mistake. n nFinal turnout figures for the city won’t be known until late this month, when election officials expect to complete their citywide vote count, including absentee and provisional ballots.
due to the machine switch at the library in Philly: n 166 out of 472 (33rd division) = 35% n 245 out of 211 (47th division) = 116% n nshould have been: n 245 out of 472 (33rd division) = 52% n 166 out of 211 (47th division) = 79% n ntotal either way: n 411 out of 683 (33rd and 47th division) = 60%