Prosecute the torture.

February 17, 2006

Governor Rendell to announce his veto of House Bill #1318 in Pittsburgh on Monday

Governor Rendell will be at Hill House Auditorium on Monday, February 20th at 1:30 to announce his veto of House Bill #1318.

The Hill House is located at 1835 Centre Ave. in Pittsburgh's Hill District.

House Bill 1318 is an anti-voting rights bill.

You can read the ACLU's take on it here and more about it at Progress Pittsburg's blog here.

William Sargent, a Democratic Candidate for the 42nd Legislative District, was one of many who asked Gov. Rendell to veto the bill. In his letter Sargent states:

"Real election reform is needed in accurate counting of votes through voter-verified paper ballots. House Bill 1318 will impede some Pennsylvanians' ability to vote and distracts from the truly needed election reform contained in legislation such as Senate Bill 977 and House Bill 2000."

House Bill 1318 requires voters to present an original form of photo or non-photo identification at every election. Voters unable to produce ID would be allowed to vote using a provisional ballot that could possibly be contested and not counted.

House Bill 2000 and Senate Bill 977, two bills calling for a paper audit of electronic votes, remain in legislative limbo.

"It is unconscionable that the Pennsylvania House and Senate believes that it is okay that a registered voter could show up on election day and not be able to vote because of a lack of 'proper' identification, but in the same breath the same career politicians discount the need to for a paper audit of a voter's electronic vote to ensure that their vote counted."
Please join Gov. Rendell and spread the word!

If you have anyquestions, feel free to contact the Black Political Empowerment Project at 412-758-7898.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Would not proper ID help prevent voter fraud? Unless of course, you guys planned on exploiting fraud in order to get more democratic votes? Sounds as if you guys are worried about the democrat vote getting across and you want to have those who aren't registered to vote, to vote.

Maria said...

How many times have you been a pollwatcher? I'm guessing none.

I have been a pollwatcher, but even if I had not, I know from voting that there is ONE voter card per registered voter and that the voter rolls are periodically checked for such things as deaths and changes of address.

I know that I personally was prevented from voting in a primary election in NYC becuase I had moved and had gone back to my old polling place to vote -- yes, a no-no, but I know a lot of others who moved a lot in Manhattan and would just go back to an old polling place to vote. I was wrong and I got bagged and didn't get to vote in that eloection.

My point is that the voting rolls are checked (and I have walk lists for several candidates to prove that) so this bill is just about getting the LEAST number of people out to vote -- which ALWAYS favors Republicans. Also to prevent the people least likely to have picture ID from voting -- which also favors Republicans.

Moreover, it's also going backwards as more states are letting ex-felons vote now and this bill tries to make it harder for ex-felons to vote.

Anonymous said...

"I know that I personally was prevented from voting in a primary election in NYC becuase I had moved and had gone back to my old polling place to vote -- yes, a no-no, but I know a lot of others who moved a lot in Manhattan and would just go back to an old polling place to vote."

So like, you just admitted at your attempt at voter fraud. Nice.

See, it's people like you who are scared of stuff like this because those like you do want to pull off fraud. Admit it...wait..you just did. Ooops!

Maria said...

Yep, I moved 10 blocks, didn't register in time and tried to vote at my old polling place.

I was wrong to try.

When I was (rightfully) challenged (they couldn't find my card), I didn't ask for a provisional ballot or anything. I didn't actually vote at my old polling place like Ann Coulter and commit a third-degree felony:

Florida Newspaper Says Ann Coulter Voted in the Wrong Precinct

NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter voted in the wrong Florida precinct, according to a Palm Beach Post piece posted Wednesday on the paper's Web site.

"Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections records show Coulter voted last week in Palm Beach's council election. Problem is: She cast her ballot in a precinct four miles north of the precinct where she owns a home -- and that could be a big no-no," Post columnist Jose Lambiet wrote. "Coulter, who owns a $1.8 million crib on Seabreeze Avenue, should have voted in Precinct 1198. It covers most homes on her street. Instead, records show, she voted in Precinct 1196, at the northern tip of the island."

Lambiet added: "Coulter registered as a Republican (no kidding!) with the supervisor's office June 24. That's three months after she bought the home and moved to Palm Beach from Manhattan. Here's the sticky part for The Right's Lady Macbeth: She wrote down an Indian Road address instead of Seabreeze on her voter's registration application. And she signed to certify the information as true."

Suzanne Frisbie, owner of the Indian Road home, said: "She never lived here. I'm Ann's Realtor, and she used this address to forward mail when she moved from New York."

According to Lambiet's column, "Florida statutes make it a third-degree felony to vote knowingly in the wrong precinct. Lying on a voter's registration can cost up to $5,000 and five years behind bars."

Patrick said...

Did Coulter indicate male or female on her registration form? I'm still insisting she was born male, and MIGHT have gone through re-assignment surgery. Have you seen that Adams Apple?

Shawn said...

Lookie here, peoples, some of us check this blog just before we plan to grab some lunch or supper. Mentioning Ms.(ter) Coulter can and often does lead to one's appetite going away for a good long while. Please, just stop.

Maria said...

coulter coulter coulter coulter
;-)

Jonathan Potts said...

Several years ago I missed the deadline to change my registration to my new address. I was advised by a person I spoke to on the phone at the Allegheny County elections bureau to vote at my old polling place, which I did. Now, if I ever run for public office, I will be outed as having committed voter fraud.

Adkenar said...

I think the idea that requiring some sort of ID makes sense, even if it was defended in the midst of some argumentum ad hominem. The bill already calls for free ID cards from the DoT if you can't get some other ID, and allows bills or other non-photo ID. I wonder if perhaps just name and social scurity number would be enough? That's something you could remember and have on you (which eliminates the problem of forgetting your ID), something most other people shouldn't know, and I imagine we could set up a challenge system so you could prevent an employer or the like from misusing your vote.

A lot of the other points--that it makes more work for election workers, etc, on the ACLUs website seemed mostly irrelevant to me; ensuring one vote per person is surely worth a little extra work, so I think as long as we solve the accessibility problem, we'd be set.