More Voter ID Hysteria From The Trib

Take a look at today's Tribune-Review:

Speaking of grove-variety pecans, “progressives” are in a tizzy-fit over a finding by Kim Strach, North Carolina's director of elections, that suggests nearly 36,000 people with the same names, birth dates and Social Security numbers voted both in the Tar Heel State and other states in 2012. Another 81 North Carolinians voted after they died, reports The Washington Times. But remember, voter fraud is a figment of the conservative imagination. [Bolding in original.]

Still is.

Here's the story:

This week, officials at the North Carolina State Board of Elections announced they had discovered possible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the battleground state.

By cross-checking North Carolina voter rolls with those in 28 other states, leaders of the board told state lawmakers they had found 35,750 records of people who voted in North Carolina and whose first name, last name and date of birth matched people who had voted in other states. More surprisingly, it also revealed 765 North Carolina voters in 2012 whose last four Social Security digits also matched those of people who voted in other states that year.

You might ask, where did they get this information? Did they generate it themselves? Is the source partisan or non-partisan?  And how reliable is it?

All good questions.  Here are some answers:

The cross-check of North Carolina voters was conducted by the office of Kris Kobach, the controversial Secretary of State in Kansas. A long-time Republican political operative, Kobach is known nationally as the architect of legislation cracking down on immigrants in Arizona and elsewhere, as well as severe voting restrictions.

Kobach launched the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program in 2005 as a free service to states — almost exclusively those led by Republican lawmakers — to flag voters who may be casting ballots in multiple states in the same election, which is a felony. In a traveling PowerPoint presentation Kobach’s office uses to pitch the program (for example, this recent presentation [PPT] in Indiana), they say it’s grown from four Midwestern states sharing 9 million voter records in 2005 to more than two dozen states states sharing 110 million files today.

Here’s how it works: A participating state sends its voter file to Kobach’s office, which compares it — free of charge — against the records from the other states. In 2013, the program flagged a staggering 5 million records of people whose names and date of birth appeared to match.

Wow.  Five million?  Is that evidence of five million double (and therefore felonious) votes?

No.  Did you know that the same Kris Kobach did the same sort of "research" for the State of Pennsylvania?  And did you know that they admitted a high number of "false positives"?  I'll let Vic Walczak of the Pennsylvania ACLU explain:

But the same materials, produced by the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office, candidly acknowledge that many of those potential duplicates are false positives: “Experience in the crosscheck program indicates that a significant number of apparent double votes are false positives and not double votes. Many are the result of errors voters sign the wrong line in the poll book, election clerks scan the wrong line with a barcode scanner, or there is confusion over the father/son voters (Sr. and Jr.).” The program thus flags a huge number of voters as potential duplicates, but admits a high error rate, elevating the ACLU’s concerns about how precisely Pennsylvania will handle voter-registration cancellations.

But that's not all, my friends.  No no.  There is more.

In hearing of this report Dick Morris wrote about the "widespread voter fraud" in North Carolina based on this research (or better, "research").  And doncha know, Politifact rated it false.

Their ruling?  Take a look:

Morris said that the large number of North Carolina voters matched with records in other states was proof that over 1 million people voted twice in the 2012 election. While Morris admittedly was extrapolating from the North Carolina data, his conclusion is flawed on several fronts.

The head of North Carolina’s board of elections did not claim that even the closest matches on name, birth date and Social Security numbers was conclusive evidence. She said more investigation was needed. The track record of the Interstate Crosscheck project shows that a tiny fraction of all potential matches represents any kind of voting fraud. In Kansas, out of more than 850,000 votes cast, only 14 names were recommended for prosecution and the Kansas Secretary of State reported no convictions.

In other states, database quirks, human error and the statistics of large numbers have been shown to trim the initial reports of widespread fraud down to the barest sliver of actual cases.

We rate the claim False.

False.  Scaife's braintrust really needs to do better than this.  But we all know they can't.

Roll Back Those Lazy-Crazy-Hazy-Days Of Summer

It's the summer of 1963, err, 2013 in the Good Ol' U.S. of A and everything is A-okay!

Any 'War on Poverty' Is Thankfully Still Just A Dream
Poverty? What poverty? This is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth!

(80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey)

We Will Arrest Those Who Practice The Love
That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Really, what do they expect?

(Gays in Baton Rouge arrested under invalid sodomy law)

The Little Lady Knows Her Place (As She Should)
We're working hard to ensure that the only abortions will be back alley ones!
(As abortion limits sweep US, even 'purple' states join the crackdown)

Negroes Know Their Place Too
Because they know death lies only a whistle at a white woman (or a hoodie) away!

(George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty And Goes Free)

And For the Ones Who Are Still Too Uppity...
We'll make it as hard as legally possible to vote!

(North Carolina Passes the Country's Worst Voter Suppression Law)

Yes siree, Bob! We wish that summer would always be here!

The latest in voter suppression in Pennsylvania today

1) Judge orders partisans to stop asking voters for ID outside Homestead polls

2) Watchdog: Evidence of Unlawful Voter Purge in Pennsylvania

3) Video of 2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes in PA:

Old (Wrong) Voter ID Posters Displayed in Police Station in the Lower Hill in Pittsburgh

In addition to posters wrongly telling PA citizens that they must show photo ID before they can vote on Tuesday being displayed in a place where the unemployed gather, apparently, they are also being displayed in a police station in a predominately African-American neighborhood in Pittsburgh.

From a good source:

"...I saw two of these posters on a bulletin board in the lobby of the District 2 police station on Centre Avenue in the Lower Hill."

Hey! Anyone see these outdated, misleading posters still being displayed on government property in, oh I don't know, Mt. Lebanon, or say, Fox Chapel, or Cranberry Township? (Please stop laughing.)

PA CareerLink Office in Robinson Displaying Poster Saying You Must Show Photo ID to Vote

A reader sent me this photograph taken today by cell phone, November 1, 2012:

(Click photo to enlarge)

This was photographed at the Allegheny West CareerLink office at Robinson Plaza Two, Suite 410, Pittsburgh, PA 15205. For those who are fortunate enough not to know it, in order to collect unemployment in PA, many are required to attend mandatory session/s at a CareerLink center.

The information on the poster is wrong as there is a temporary injunction against needing to show photo ID at the polls for the election on November 6, 2012 and it may therefore suppress the vote.

This needs to be taken down IMMEDIATELY! (Why was it still up?)

I will be calling them.

UPDATE: I left a message for the center's directory, Tiffany (didn't catch the last name). She's either at the Downtown office /out to lunch. I also spoke to someone at the ACLU about this.

UPDATE 2: Everyone, please call them to complain: (412) 809-3500!

UPDATE 3: Tiffiany did leave a message for me today (Nov. 2) and we are now playing phone tag.

And yet even more voter suppression

NSFW
As David noted here, as of October 26th, radio ads falsely claiming that Pennsylvania voters had to show photo ID on election day were still running on KDKA radio (and who knows where else). And then there's this. Yesterday afternoon, while everyone was still bracing for what Sandy might bring to PA and while we were in an official state of emergency, the voter suppression was ongoing -- this time, on the streets of Pittsburgh. I saw this via Facebook from a co-worker (and someone whom I trust):

OMFG!!!!! There are state trucks driving around the city today with 30ft signs that say SHOW ID!!!! This is unbelievable!!!! Anyone know what numbers would be best to contact about this...if you dont know we DO NOT NEED to show ID on the 6th

Unfortunately, he was going in the opposite direction, so no photograph was taken.

Now, I don't know if the giant ads he saw had the fine print like the one below, but even if they did, what message are you really going to get (or literally see) from something on a moving vehicle?

According to Ngani Ndimbie of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, buses displaying signs like the one below -- even if they display the fine print -- are a problem for obvious reasons and add to the misinformation:

Reports from supporters/ voting rights advocates about the new "(small text) If you have it, (big text) Show it" bus ad campaign were the tipping point before we filed the latest complaint w/ Judge Simpson about the state misinforming voters.

On top of that, what an incredible waste of state resources!

If you happen to see one of these moving billboards, please take a photo and send it to the ACLU of Pennsylvania (and me!).

An example of the new, fine print added "show it" campaign:

Scaife/Trib Total Media PA Paper Gives False Voter ID "News"

If not the world, at least the White House.
(Photo via Pittsburgh City Paper)

Looks like we have a bigger concern than those confusing Voter ID Law ads running in Pennsylvania -- there's at least one newspaper printing a story with outright false information in it. According to Think Progress, last Thursday, The Mount Pleasant Journal ran a story with the headline "Photo ID required for November election."

Of course, the new voter suppression ID law has been suspended for the November 6th election. The Mount Pleasant Journal is a weekly newspaper run by right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife's Trib Total Media. They printed the story more than two weeks after the court ruling blocked the law.

The story in The Mount Pleasant Journal has no byline.

(Via Think Progress)

UNDONE (temporarily)

Though some got today's PA Voter ID law ruling wrong initially (Post-Gazette and Think Progress) causing real confusion (at least by me and some others on Twitter), most (including Pittsburgh City Paper) got it right the first time. The bottom line is that House Majority Leader Mike Turzai and Governor Tom Corbett and their Republican buddies have been temporarily undone.

The bottom line is this:

The election in November will function just as the primary election did. You do not need to have an ID to vote in Pennsylvania on November 6th. Poll workers can ask you for an ID, but you will not be prevented from voting normally (on a machine without a provisional ballot) if you do not show them an ID.

VOTER ID RULING

From a few minutes ago at the P-G:

A judge has blocked the state from discounting ballots cast next month by voters who lack the photo identification required under the new voter ID law.

Judge Robert Simpson of the Commonwealth Court wrote in an order released this morning that the injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law -- when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it -- through the November election. His order allows election workers to ask voters next month to show identification.

I have to admit I am not really sure exactly what this means.  (SEE UPDATE BELOW)

Here's the AP to help me out:

A judge postponed Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election but allowing it to go into full effect next year.

Let me go see if I can find the ruling.

UPDATE:  Here it is.

Another UPDATE:  From the ruling:

Permanent Injunction

Petitioners’ preserve their facial challenge to Act 18 because the statute contains no right to a non-burdensome means of obtaining the required identification. Pet’rs’ Post-Hearing Br. at 5, n.5. Thus, I will begin planning for trial on a permanent injunction.

In this regard, my understanding of the Supreme Court’s per curiam order is that I was to address certain discrete aspects of the case on remand, not that the burden of proof shifted to the Commonwealth. The parties have strongly divergent views on this point. If my understanding is incorrect, the Court’s guidance will be needed.

Relatedly, the Supreme Court’s reference to “no voter disenfranchisement … for purposes of the upcoming election,” Applewhite, ___ Pa. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 7, has sparked debate between the parties. I understand the phrase to be focused on the preliminary injunction for purposes of the upcoming election. I do not understand the phrase to define the test for a facial validity challenge in the context of a permanent injunction.

My guess (and this is just a guess as I am not nor have I ever been nor have I ever even entertained the possibility of becoming an attorney) that this is something of a punt-back.  It's not a permanent injunction to the law as Judge Simpson states he was only asked to address aspects of the case "for the purposes of the upcoming election."

And he's beginning to plan for a trial on a permanent injunction.

But for now, it's...injoined?  Injuncted?  Is there an attorney reading this right now?  Can you help a blogger out?  What's the proper verb for this?

YET ANOTHER UPDATE:  The P-G article above has changed.

The Latest On The GOP's Voter Disenfranchisement Bill

It might get blocked.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

With just six weeks until the presidential election, a judge raised the possibility Tuesday that he would move to block Pennsylvania's controversial voter ID law.

"I'm giving you a heads-up," Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. told lawyers after a day's testimony on whether the law is being implemented in ways that ensure no voters will be disenfranchised. "I think it's a possibility there could be an injunction here."

Simpson then asked lawyers on both sides to be prepared to return to court Thursday to present arguments on what such an injunction should look like. There is no hearing Wednesday because of Yom Kippur.

And from the P-G:

Judge Simpson ruled last month that the new law requiring photo ID of all voters was being implemented appropriately and he declined to grant an injunction halting the statute.

But the state Supreme Court sent a challenge of the law back to the lower court last week, asking it to ensure there is "liberal access" to new voting-only IDs and there will be "no disenfranchisement" of voters on Nov. 6. A supplemental opinion is due back to the Supreme Court by Oct. 2.

Judge Simpson said this morning that he does not intend to wait until that deadline to issue his updated opinion.

"I think the sooner the better for everyone," he told the courtroom audience.

Of course Brad Bumstead of the Trib doesn't see what the problem is:

A poll released on Wednesday by Franklin & Marshall College found 99 percent of respondents had IDs suitable for use when voting.

Fifty-nine percent said they support the law, compared with 39 percent who do not. Even if inadequate IDs kept eligible voters from casting ballots, 75 percent said they still support the law.

Opponents, who include the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that hundreds of thousands of voters would not have proper identification to vote. They believe the law would mostly restrict minorities and low-income and elderly Pennsylvanians.

“The data doesn’t support that there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people without ID,” testified Kurt Myers, a deputy PennDOT secretary

Brad, the State Supreme Court wasn't talking about almost no disenfranchisement but NO disenfranchisement.

But that's the Trib.

The Empire Strikes Back (or Tries To).

Remember this from Thinkprogress?  It's about how Judicial Watch is at the forefront of the conservative push for "VoterID" laws and about how Richard Mellon Scaife has thrown serious amounts of money at Judicial Watch.

Well, now that the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has issued its ruling, sending the case back to the Commonwealth Court, the Scaife braintrust responds accordingly:

Under the standard set by the state Supreme Court in remanding Pennsylvania’s contested voter ID law to Commonwealth Court, there never can be such a law in Penn’s Wood.

The high court, ruling 4-2 on Tuesday, gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to determine if the state is providing “liberal” access to new photo ID cards or if any voter will be unable to cast a ballot because of the voter ID law. (It was Judge Simpson who, in August, declined to enjoin the law’s implementation.)

But by the Supreme Court’s standard, any voter — perhaps someone who’s never voted and has no intention of voting but is recruited by any anti-voter ID sympathizers? — effectively can scotch the law.

The fix is in.

Yes.  They have it exactly right.  By making sure that no one (NO ONE) is disenfranchised by this law, "the fix is in."

They even try an old, unsupported attack:

Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a poison pill bordering on a Hobson’s choice that will guarantee that elections in Pennsylvania will continue to be loosey-goosey affairs.

"Continue to be..."?  "Loosey-goosey"???

That's the case only if one assumes a reality that doesn't, in fact, exist.

Randy Bish even gets into the act:

Um, do I need to remind my friends at the Trib that (as USAToday reported):

In a pretrial stipulation, Pennsylvania officials said they would offer no evidence that "in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere" or that "in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a Photo ID law."

Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public-record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000. [emphasis added.]

So when the braintrust posits a history of "loosey-goosey" elections in Pennsylvania or when Randy Bish raises the scary spectre of in person voter fraud in the future as a result of this ruling, they're just simply lying to you.

Just simply lying.