Darn That Chris Potter!

In a comment to this blog post, comet pilot Bram bammed:

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/SlagHeap/archives/2012/07/24/did-the-state-really-concede-that-voter-fraud-never-happens

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.

The link is, of course, to Potter's slag heap.

In a blog post titled "Did the state REALLY concede that voter fraud never happens?" Potter gives us an annoying answer:

Not exactly.

His reasoning?

As the stipulation agreement notes, the state's "sole rationale for the Photo ID law," is contained in a response to written questions filed by the ACLU. And in that answer, the state makes quite clear that it has plenty of suspicions that Voter ID does take place ... and that one purpose of the law is to ferret out such cases.

State officials "are aware of reports indicating that votes have been cast in the name of registered electors who are deceased, who no longer reside in Pennsylvania , or who no longer reside in the jurisdiction where the vote is cast," the state's answer asserts. And without some proof of ID, the state contends, "there is a risk that votes may be cast in the names of registered electors who are dead or who have left [the area] by a person other than the registered voters ... Requiring a photo ID is one way to ensure that every elector who presents himself to vote [is] the person that he purports to be, and to ensure that the public has confidence in the electoral process. The requirement of a photo ID is a tool to detect and deter voter fraud." [emphasis in original.]

I haven't been able to find the State's response to the ACLU's interrogatories (a little help, Chris? Bram?) so I can't link to it.  So while Pennsylvania stipulates no evidence of voter fraud, they're now saying that they need the law to find the evidence they suspect is out there.

Potter has more:

What's more, even after reading a fuller explanation of the state's position, it's not as if they have a particularly strong case. Many of the voting irregularities it cites are more than a decade old, took place in other states, or both. Some of them are simply canards: Chris Briem at Null Space, for example, has previously addressed the myth of dead voters showing up at polls.

But still, he says, it's a "distortion" to say that Pennsylvania admitted that there's no voter fraud.

Ok, fine.  He's right.  Leave it to Potter to buzz kill our triumphant chest thumping with, you know, facts and stuff.