Democracy Has Prevailed.

July 25, 2012

Follow Up: On The Non-Existent Voter Fraud

The P-G had the story yesterday:
State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.
Here's the stipulation in the event you wanted to read it for yourself.  The first two points (FIRST TWO POINTS) are as follows:
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 investigations or prosecutions in other states;

The parties are not aware of any incidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and do not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere;
However, when asked about the stipulation, Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele strayed from the truth:
Asked about a stipulation, signed by both parties in the lawsuit, that the state would offer neither evidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania nor evidence that voter fraud would be likely without the law this November, Ms. Aichele said there are few cases of such kind of fraud.

"The attorney general is not going to pursue the issue of cases brought for voter impersonations, for voter fraud," she said. "If there are cases, there are very few."

But she suggested this might be because district attorneys use limited resources to prosecute other crimes: "If you're a district attorney in a county, and you have a choice to prosecute crimes like murder, rape and armed robbery, you're going to do that before you go after the voter fraud cases."
But the state stipulated that there have been no investigations - how can there be a case without an investigation?.  Aichele is trying to say there have been cases ("a few") but implied that since other crimes like  murder and rape take precedence those cases aren't pursued.

But the state stipulated no incidence of in-person voter fraud (the sort the Voter ID bill is supposed to combat).

But the big point is found here, on the pages of the Trib:
Critics note that Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley acknowledged in a stipulation with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia for the Commonwealth Court hearing that Pennsylvania hasn’t investigated or prosecuted anyone for “in-person” voter fraud and won’t offer evidence of voter fraud.
So if ever, in the future, our good friends on Scaife's braintrust ever assert the "fact" of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, we'll know that they're lying.  It was already reported in their own paper that Pennsylvania stipulated no voter fraud.

NO VOTER FRAUD in Pennsylvania.


Bram Reichbaum said...


It's good that the lawyers put this aside. The important issue isn't whether or not there has been vote fraud -- the important thing is that the "remedy" or "safeguard" disenfranchises thousands of people in this year.

People are realizing how many people get by without "necessities" like a Drivers' License, prescription medication, and Giant Eagle cards.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

BS on the "voter fraud neber happens".

I was a poll watcher in a Wilkensburg poll location in November 2008.

The number of 'voters' who couldn't even function astounded me.. they came in wheelchairs slobbering all over themselves and had others push the buttons.

More than one had NO identification of any type even though such was required for first time voters.

So, *maybe* there was no 'fraud', there was and is a lot of ignorance and mainipulation.. by DEMOCRATS.

How's that 'Hopey Changey' thingy working for you liberals? Like your unemployment checks and food stamps? Hehehehehhehe..

Ol' Froth said...

So what is your solution? Competency tests? ANd the "HopeyChangy" thing is working quite nicely for me Mr CM. Thanks for asking!

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Compentency tests would be a good start.. along with an ID and, then, if deemed valid to vote.. an inked finger.

#2 and #3 without a compentency test would be OK. Yes, I'm dead serious on this.

Oh, NO early voting and very strict rules on absentee voting.. no absentee applications allowed that were supplied by any outside party.. you want an absentee ballot? Request in writing. Only then should you get one.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

@Ol'e Froth.. Government/Public sector Union employee, I see (a/k/a leech).

EdHeath said...

You know, CM, if if some schizophrenic is running around in your neighbourhood with a semi-automatic AR-15 and a hundred round drum magazine executing people in their homes, it will be a "Government/Public sector Union employee ... (a/k/a leech)." standing between you and death. By sure to tell them what leech on society they are, and how important it is they the surrender their pension and take a pay cut so some millionaire can pay millions less in taxes.