See? There WAS Voter Fraud! Only TRUMP DID IT

52 U.S. Code § 20511: 

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office...

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by...

(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held...

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 

GA Code § 21-2-604 (2016): 

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

And then this from the Washington Post:

President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that legal scholars described as a flagrant abuse of power and a potential criminal act.

And:

At another point, Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

He later added: “So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

And then this from the NYTimes: 

President Trump pressured Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to “find” him enough votes to overturn the presidential election and vaguely threatened him with “a criminal offense” during an hourlong telephone call on Saturday, according to an audio recording of the conversation.

And a few paragraphs down we learn of the threat:

“You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” the president said during the call. “You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

Hmm...a vague-ish threat for criminal prosecution (Trump IS still head of the DOJ, doncha know) unless Georgia officials "find" him just enough votes to win. All caught on tape for the entire world to hear.

I'm NOT a lawyer but it sure sounds to me like this runs counter to 52 U.S. Code § 20511 and Georgia Code § 21-2-562 (2016). 

How is this not illegal? And in light of this, how can the hundred or so House members (including one from my neighboring district, Representative Guy Reschenthaler) or the dozen or so Senators looking to upend Biden's win in November still support the criminal in the White House?

And snarkier still, how will Wendy Bell spin it?

Donald Trump Loses In Pennsylvania. Again.

 From the AP:

A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

You can read the opinion here (and I suggest you do). 

Back to the AP:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

Let's take a deeper look at that section of the opinion - it's the opening of the Introduction:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

For those who are curious as to what it means to dismiss a case "with prejudice," it means: 

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.

And in case my non-attorney research is wrong, here it is from ABC News:

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the Trump campaign cannot resubmit the case. The defeat levels a blow to the most high-profile case brought by the president in his multi-state effort to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.

Let's not be so quick to dismiss him as an "Obama appointee" however. Take a look:

Brann, who is active in Republican politics in Pennsylvania, faced the most challenging questioning of the hourlong hearing at which five candidates for federal judgeships and a spot on the U.S. Sentencing Commission were considered. 

Citing Brann's involvement with the state Republican Party, the National Rifle Association and the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called him "probably the most Republican judicial nominee from the Obama White House."

There's more (I'm adding this just in case your MAGA uncle starts ranting about the Demonrat judge in Pennsylvania who's keeping Trump from fulfilling God's purpose of at least two terms:

Yep. Judge Brann is a Republican. He was nominated by Obama as part of a bipartisan agreement between PA's Senators (Casey & Toomey) in which they each got a pick, and both were unanimously confirmed via a voice vote. Brann was Toomey's pick: https://t.co/WXgUlvVZFC https://t.co/KM9yQA9Etc

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) November 22, 2020

And now, look at what's happenned. Senator Pat Toomey finally pulls the trigger: 

With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.

This ruling follows a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign. On Friday, the state of Georgia certified the victory of Joe Biden after a hand recount of paper ballots confirmed the conclusion of the initial electronic count. Michigan lawmakers rejected the apparent attempt by President Trump to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors. These developments, together with the outcomes in the rest of the nation, confirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and will become the 46th President of the United States.

I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

Of course Toomey is not running for reelection in 2022 so he's got little to lose politically.

Which is good news, I suppose, because:

Thanks Mark. It’s all a continuation of the never ending Witch Hunt. Judge Brann, who would not even allow us to present our case or evidence, is a product of Senator Pat “No Tariffs” Toomey of Pennsylvania, no friend of mine, & Obama - No wonder. 900,000 Fraudulent Votes! https://t.co/17rk2KsUPs

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2020

Again, no evidence of 900,000 fraudulent votes in PA. If there was evidence of such fraud it would have been presented in court.

And it wasn't.

 

Texas Literally Turns Back the Clock on Women's Rights. Democracy Aborted. (UPDATE: WIN!)

 

Senator Wendy Davis (D) filibustered in the Texas state legislature for 13 hours yesterday in order to prevent a vote on a bill which would unconstitutionally criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks, close all but five of Texas clinics that provide abortions and defund Planned Parenthood. Aside from not being allowed to eat or go to the bathroom, she wasn't even allowed to lean against the podium. And, unlike filibusters you may have seen before, she had to stay germane to the topic -- no reading from the phone book -- and the decision as to whether or not she 'strayed' from the topic was decided by the men of the GOP.

Right before midnight -- the deadline for voting -- it was declared that she had achieved a third strike because she was talking about forced invasive ultrasounds which somehow wasn't on topic. Hundreds in the audience erupted in chants of "Let her speak!" as a bunch of men debated her right to continue and -- no surprise -- decided that she could not.

Then they took a vote on the bill -- over 100,000 watched a live stream of the vote, which occurred AFTER MIDNIGHT -- meaning too late to pass the bill.

So what did the legislature do? They turned back the clock on the vote just as they turned back the clock on women's reproductive rights.

Here's the original actual recorded time of the vote on the legislature's website which happened at 12:02 AM TODAY:

Here's the forged one which they are claiming took place at 11:57 PM yesterday:

Here's the actual time stamp:

And then they arrested the audience who were protesting the illegal vote.

Democracy. Too bad we don't have one in Texas.

Or as was tweeted by Martha Plimpton:

#TxGOP claims to know the exact moment at which life begins, but can't comprehend "midnight." Hi. #SB5 #TxLegeFail
— Martha Plimpton (@MarthaPlimpton) June 26, 2013

Yep, Texas finally found a real instance of voter fraud.

UPDATE: WIN!!! 

BREAKING: Texas lt. gov. reverses himself, declares vote on tough abortion bill came too late to pass.
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 26, 2013

Up-To-Date? Um, No...

If you need any further evidence as to how badly the Tribune-Review does it's research or how low an opinion of its audience it holds, you need only look here:

Townhall.com reports that only one precinct in St. Lucie County, Fla., had a voter turnout of less than 113 percent in the November elections. One actually had a turnout of nearly 160 percent. But, according to “progressives,” voter fraud is a conservative myth. Ahem.

You'll note that the link to Townhall doesn't go to anything specific at Townhall, just the front page.  That should be the warning that something's up.  So let's look around.

The thing is, if you google the phrase "lucie county" at "townhall.com" (via google's "advanced" functionality) you can find a comment dated January 25, 2013 that links back to an earlier blog post at Townhall.

Here's that original posting:

On Tuesday only one precinct had less than 113% turnout. “The Unofficial vote count is 175,554 registered voters 247,713 vote cards cast (141.10% ). The National SEAL Museum, a St. Lucie county polling place, had 158.85% voter turn out, the highest in the county.”

And if you were to click on the "113%" link, you'll find this page with this headline:

UPDATE: MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL CALLED INTO QUESTION – 141% TURNOUT

But...but...but...CHECK THE TIMESTAMP OF THAT FIRST BLOG POST.  Here it is:

Nov 10, 2012 01:21 PM EST

So yea, Townhall did report what the braintrust said it reported - three months ago.

But let's look deeper at those numbers.  If you were to go to the Lucie County Elections website, you'll find this pdf where it says quite clearly:

Registered Voters 175554 - Cards Cast 247383 140.92%

Cards cast? What does that mean? Is it the same as Votes cast?  In order for the myth to work, it has to.

Snopes.com had an answer for this - a month and a half ago:

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding between the difference in "number of votes" cast and "number of cards" cast. The official election results from St. Lucie County, Florida, show, a total of 123,301 votes were cast for the office of President of the United States, but a total of 247,383 cards were cast because St. Lucie County used a two-page ballot (i.e., a ballot consisting of two cards), so every voter who returned both pages of his ballot cast two cards.

As the web site of that county's elections board explains: "Turnout percentages will show over 100% due to a two page ballot. The tabulation system (GEMS) provides voter turnout as equal to the total cards cast in the election divided by the number of registered voters. Also note that some voters chose not to return by mail the second card."

The braintrust can usually be counted on to be dutifully wingnut on most things - but to get something this easily checked and "old" (in news terms) is just embarrassing.

Another Threat To Our Democracy

While the GOP has been warning us for years about the (illusory) "significant voter fraud" and its (supposed) threat to our democracy, the real threat is coming from them.

 From Talkingpoints Memo:

Call it a gaffe: a slip-up that accidentally reveals the truth.

A recent memo by the Republican State Leadership Committee emphasizes the party’s 2010 victories in state legislatures as central to the House GOP retaining its majority in the 2012 elections.

The reason? Redistricting — or more precisely, gerrymandering.

From the memo:

The rationale was straightforward: Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

And:

President Obama won reelection in 2012 by nearly 3 points nationally, and banked 126 more electoral votes than Governor Mitt Romney. Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents. But the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a Republican and presides over a 33-seat House Republican majority during the 113th Congress. How? One needs to look no farther than four states that voted Democratic on a statewide level in 2012, yet elected a strong Republican delegation to represent them in Congress: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

And this is what the Republican Gerrymandering accomplished:

A REDMAP target state, the RSLC spent nearly $1 million in Pennsylvania House races in 2010 – an expenditure that helped provide the GOP with majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Combined with former Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett’s victory in the gubernatorial race, Republicans took control of the state legislative and congressional redistricting process. The impact of this investment at the state level in 2010 is evident when examining the results of the 2012 election: Pennsylvanians reelected a Democratic U.S. Senator by nearly nine points and reelected President Obama by more than five points, but at the same time they added to the Republican ranks in the State House and returned a 13-5 Republican majority to the U.S. House.

According to Fairvote.org, had these new laws been in place before the 2012 election, Obama's overwhelming win would have been (with exactly the same votes) much much closer.

And now what are the Republican legislators in Harrisburg looking to do with these manipulated-for-the-benefit-of-the-GOP congressional districts?

State Senator Domini Pileggi has an idea: "Proportionality."  Take a look:

Under the proportional system, two of Pennsylvania’s 20 electors are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis (representing the two senatorial electors). The remaining 18 electors are chosen based on the percentage of the statewide vote earned by each candidate (rounded to the thousandths). For example, President Obama won 52.088% of the vote in November. Under this system, he would have received 12 of Pennsylvania’s 20 electors (the two statewide electors plus 10 of the 18 remaining electors, which would be distributed proportionately).

This advantage of this system is clear: It much more accurately reflects the will of the voters in our state.

Yea, but since the electoral votes would be distributed by gerrymandered congressional district (districts that benefit the GOP), we all know that that last part's plainly incorrect.

Message from this state's Republicans in the state legislature: When you can't win fairly, simply legislate a change of the rules (i.e. cheat legally).

Their Latest Excuse

Teh Crazies have another excuse:

It's not fair!  A thirty-year old consent decree is keeping them from fighting VOTER FRAUD.

This is what's coming out of crazie central: World Net Daily:

...a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.

Impossible?

No. Fact.

The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.

Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.

And they ("inexplicably") agreed to it, of course, because Reagan trounced Carter only two years before.  So of course they were politically powerless.  Of course.

When we look at a recent challenge to this consent decree, we find that in 1987 (still during the Reagan years) that the decree was modified. It pointed out some really dirty tricks from the RNC (Note: this is still two years BEFORE Lee Atwater took over):

In Louisiana during the 1986 Congressional elections, the RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing letters to African-American voters and, then, including individuals whose letters were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge. A number of voters on the challenge list brought a suit against the RNC in Louisiana state court. In response to a discovery request made in that suit, the RNC produced a memorandum in which its Midwest Political Director stated to its Southern Political Director that “this program will eliminate at least 60,000–80,000 folks from the rolls . . . If it’s a close race . . . which I’m assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably.”

There was a lawsuit and then:

The RNC and the DNC settled the lawsuit, this time by modifying the Consent Decree, which remained “in full force and effect.” (App. at 404.) In the 1982 Decree, the RNC had agreed to specific restrictions regarding its ability to engage in “ballot security activities,” but that Decree did not define the term “ballot security activities.” (App. at 401.) As modified in 1987, the Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.” The modifications clarified that the RNC “may deploy persons on election day to perform normal poll watch[ing] functions so long as such persons do not use or implement the results of any other ballot security effort, unless the other ballot security effort complies with the provisions of the Consent Order and applicable law and has been so determined by this Court.” (App. at 405.) The modifications also added a preclearance provision that prohibits the RNC from assisting or engaging in ballot security activities unless the RNC submits the program to the Court and to the DNC with 20 days’ notice and the Court determines that the program complies with the Consent Decree and applicable law. [Emphasis added.]

Wait, wait. So the Republicans CAN do normal poll watching??  Since 1987?

But I thought that the WND said they were barred from trying to make sure the elections are clean?

Someone's bullshitting you, my friends.  How much you wanna bet it's the World Net Daily?

The GOP Debacle 2012 - Two Views

We all know how the election ended. President Obama was reelected with 332 Electoral and 62,085,892 Popular votes (51%), beating Challenger Mitt Romney who won 206 Electoral and 58,777,012 Popular votes (48%).

The big story, as told by CBS, is how the Romney Campaign got it so wrong.  They really did think they were going to win:

Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.

They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.

Didn't happen, of course. But why not?

Politico has some answers:

Across the [GOP]’s campaigns, committees and super PACs, internal polling gave an overly optimistic read on the electorate. The Romney campaign entered the last week of the election convinced that Colorado, Florida and Virginia were all but won, that the race in Ohio was neck and neck and that the Republican nominee had a legitimate shot in Pennsylvania.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee consistently had a more upbeat assessment of races in North Dakota and Montana, among others, than their Democratic counterparts. One GOP poll even showed Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock holding even with his opponent, even as public polls showed the embattled Republican hemorrhaging support. A Republican poll taken by Susquehanna Polling and Research showed Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith leading Democratic Sen. Bob Casey by 2 points a few weeks before the election; Casey won by 9 points.

Back to CBS. The piece lists the miscalculations the GOP made regarding their poll data:

1. They misread turnout. They expected it to be between 2004 and 2008 levels, with a plus-2 or plus-3 Democratic electorate, instead of plus-7 as it was in 2008. Their assumptions were wrong on both sides: The president's base turned out and Romney's did not. More African-Americans voted in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida than in 2008. And fewer Republicans did: Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.

2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.

3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.

That's one view - reasonable, logical and supported by, you know evidence.

But never mind all that, Joseph Farah over at World Net Daily has the real reason why Romney ended up 116 Electoral and 3,309,000 Actual votes down.  It was VOTER FRAUD:

I also know that the reigning ethos of this movement represented so ably today by Obama is this: “By any means necessary …” It was first articulated by Jean Paul Sartre in his play, “Dirty Hands.” But it became popularized as a slogan of the revolutionary left by Malcolm X.

What it means, in short, is that the ends justify the means. It means violence is fine in achieving a worthwhile objective. It means lying, stealing, cheating and all those other bourgeoisie “sins” are appropriate means of furthering the cause.

Is there any doubt in your mind today that this is now the reigning ethos of the Democratic Party and its various tentacles and allies?

There is no doubt in my mind.

And that’s why stealing the vote is not only an acceptable practice by these people, it is a moral imperative in their twisted worldview.

Am I suggesting that the recent presidential election was stolen through voter fraud and manipulation?

Without a doubt.

While he writes that he has "plenty of anecdotal evidence" to support his view that 5% of the Democrat's support is attributed to fraud, he only offers us 4 examples.

None of which actually make much sense as evidence.  Let's take them one by one:

1) In Ohio, the voter rolls are "bloated" meaning that in some counties there are more people registered to vote than there are actual voters.  This, to Farah, is evidence of voter fraud.  What he leaves out of his quotation from his source material is these paragraphs:

The research found: more than 1.8 million dead people listed as voters; about 2.75 million with voter registrations in more than one state; and about 12 million voter records with incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.

The latter category is where you’ll find most of Ohio’s 1.6 million inactive voters.

“For the most part, these are individuals who have already had mail returned to the board of elections or have filed a change of address with the U.S. post office,” said Husted spokeswoman Maggie Ostrowski.

Yet they are still officially registered to vote in Ohio and can cast a ballot if they provide a valid form of identification and their signature matches the one on file.

Bloated voter rolls in Ohio? Doesn't matter.

2) Michigan.  Farah wonders who Obama won so handily when the polls showed the two candidates in a virtual tie." Because they didn't. Take a look at Nate Silver's listing of the Michigan Poll data. Or Real Clear Politics. Nowhere in there is there any indication of a "virtual tie."

3) James O'Keefe and Project Veritas.  This doesn't even require a response.

4) WND's investigation that "demonstrated conclusively" that the Obama Campaign was taking illegal contributions via its website.  While I have no idea how this proves Voter Fraud, it did show that WND itself committed fraud by donating to a political campaign in someone else's name.

No limit of teh crazie over at World Net Daily.

Scaife, The Trib, Judicial Watch And PA Voter Suppression

I'll let Josh Israel of Think Progress frame it this time:

Since launching its 2012 Election Integrity Project in February, the right-wing Judicial Watch has been a leading player in the push for more voting restrictions. The group — best known for its Clinton-era lawsuits — has demanded more voting roll purges like Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) failed efforts in Florida. But a ThinkProgress examination of tax filings reveals that the group has received millions of dollars from foundations tied to conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife since the start of 2001.

This we've known for a while.  The only thing missing from Israel's otherwise solid reporting is the well-known fact that Scaife owns the Tribune-Review (Josh only goes so far as to call him a "media baron.") and that the Tribune-Review publishes things like this:

As it wrangles over a controversial voter identification law set to take effect in November, Pennsylvania might be the next target of a foundation that sued two states to clean their voter rolls.

Allegheny County in particular concerns the Washington-based Judicial Watch, which this summer sued Indiana and Ohio. It believes a high voter registration rate in the county — nearly 90 percent in 2010 — could point to outdated and corruption-prone voter lists, foundation President Tom Fitton said Wednesday. National voter registration averages are closer to 70 percent.

With no mention of the millions Scaife's funneled to Judicial Watch.  But in any event, did you see what they did?  They found another reason to support the Voter ID law!  The possibility of "outdated and corruption-prone voter lists"!

Only buried a few paragraphs down do we get to learn why the voter rolls in Allegheny County are higher than the national average:

Scholars suggested several factors could explain the unusually robust voter registration counts in Allegheny County. The number in Philadelphia is similarly high — 85.8 percent as of 2010, according to Judicial Watch.

“Urban areas tend to have higher mobility” as people move from city to city, among local neighborhoods or even within apartment complexes, said Justin Levitt, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He said that can lead to multiple registrations, temporarily, under the same name.

In any event, the County can't remove those names from the rolls.  How do we know this?  It says so in the article:

As many as 30 percent of the state’s more than 8 million registered voters might be classified as inactive, but state and federal rules can keep elections officials from purging some inactive registrations for as long as nine years, local and state officials said.

Shannon Royer, deputy secretary of the commonwealth, said counties cannot clean the rolls simply “at their discretion.” [emphasis added.]

And yet, the piece in the Scaife-owned Tribune-Review is framed in such a way as to allow the Scaife-funded Judicial Watch to say that Allegheny County's to blame for it's inaccurate (i.e. "inaccurate and corruption prone") voter rolls and that the solution to that "problem" is the Voter ID law currently in front of the state Supreme Court.

See how that works?

The Trib Is Really Pushing The Voter Fraud Fraud

First there's this, today:

Those who question the necessity of voter ID laws should consider the developing case of a Florida woman dubbed a “ballot broker” by The Miami Herald.

She’s Hialeah resident Daisy Cabrera, and she’s being investigated by Miami-Dade detectives and state prosecutors after she was found in possession of at least a dozen absentee ballots belonging to other voters.

You can read the story here.

Scaife's braintrust ends it's piece with this:

Whether it’s large-scale, ACORN-style, or small-scale, Cabrera-style, vote fraud is real — a real threat to the voting rights of all. And voter ID laws are necessary to counter that threat.

But take even a cursory look at the details coming out of Miami.  Cabrera is alleged to have, among other things, filled out and signed at least one absentee ballot for someone else.

The braintrust, you'll note, never explains how a showing a photo ID before voting would "counter the threat" to our democracy that Cabrera's 31 absentee ballots pose.

Oh, and again ACORN was playing with voter registrations.  Voter registration fraud is not the same as voter fraud.

No matter how many times you tell the lie, it's still a lie folks.

Then there's this, from a few days ago:

Without question, Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law undermines the Democrats’ long-standing strategy of using voter fraud to secure electoral victory.

Now I am sure that the author of that sentence, Kathleen Jones Goldman, chair of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the Republican National Lawyers Association, is a fine attorney.

But even she has to recognize the dishonesty of that sentence.  Given this, from the New York Times:

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Can she explain how this "long standing strategy" failed detection by the Bush administration DOJ?

Either the Bush DOJ was completely incompetent or the Voter fraud that Goldman sees just doesn't exist.

So which is it?

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.

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.

What Race-Baiting?

The editorial board of the Tribune-Review, yet again, is hoping that its loyal readers simply trust what they say and won't bother checking the details from yet another editorial.

From Scaife's braintrust this weekend:

"Race-baiting” is “the act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.”

And then:

Speaking last week to delegates at the NAACP convention in Houston, Mr. Holder likened voter ID laws to “a poll tax” that takes America back to its Jim Crow days.

Never mind that free identification will be provided to any voter who doesn’t have and/or can’t afford it — and never mind that those still without IDs can cast provisional ballots — Holder says the Obama administration “will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.”

Yet it is Holder who uses the political pretext of race-baiting to undermine the very franchise he’s sworn to protect.

Um...so where's the race bating?  Perhaps it's somewhere else in his speech.

Did you know that the phrase "poll tax" doesn't actually occur in Holder's speech?  Even though the Trib used quotation marks when describing what Holder said?  Did you know that the phrase "Jim Crow" doesn't occur in the speech at all?  The braintrust is projecting those things onto Holder's speech - all without telling you.  And finally did you know that in the speech Holder was specifically referring to just one Voter ID law?  The one in Texas, which not-coincidentally is where he was speaking?

Yet again, the Tribune-Review is counting on its readership to skip the invaluable step of checking the Tribune-Review's facts (or better yet "facts").

This is actually what the Attorney General said about SB14:

At a fundamental level, this is the same commitment that has driven us to expand access to, and prevent discrimination in, America’s elections systems. And in jurisdictions across the country, it has compelled the Civil Right’s Division’s Voting Section to take meaningful steps to ensure integrity, independence, and transparency in our enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – a law that the NAACP was instrumental in advancing. Especially in recent months, Texas has – in many ways – been at the center of our national debate about voting rights issues. And I know many of you have been on the front lines of this fight. Here – as in a number of jurisdictions across the country – the Justice Department has initiated careful, thorough, and independent reviews of proposed voting changes – including redistricting plans, early voting procedures, photo identification requirements, and changes affecting third party registration organizations – in order to guard against disenfranchisement, and to help ensure that none of these proposals would have a discriminatory purpose or effect.

And, as many of you know, yesterday was the first day of trial in a case that th e State of Texas filed against the Justice Department, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, seeking approval of its proposed voter ID law. After close review, the Department found that this law would be harmful to minority voters – and we rejected its implementation.

Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would be acceptable forms of photo ID – but student IDs would not. Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them – and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. Since the passage of this law, the NAACP and other leading civil rights organizations have been spearheading critical efforts to protect the rights of minority voters in this and other states. And a growing number of you are working to raise awareness about the potential impact of this and other similar laws – and the fact that – according to some recent studies – nationally, only 8% of white voting age citizens, while 25% of African-American voting age citizens, lack a government-issued photo ID. In our efforts to protect voting rights and to prevent voting fraud, we will be vigilant and strong. But let me be clear: we will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious right.

Now, I can’t predict the future. And I don’t know what will happen as this case moves forward. But I can assure you that the Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive. And I have every expectation that we’ll continue to be effective. The arc of American history has always moved toward expanding the electorate. It is what has made this nation exceptional. We will simply not allow this era to be the beginning of the reversal of that historic progress.

So where, again, is the race-baiting?

In the meantime, how bad is the "voter fraud" problem in the Great State of Texas?

Turns out, it's nearly non-existent:

While the State of Texas invests time and money into defending its voter ID law in federal court this week, KHOU 11 News has found the problem isn’t as extensive as portrayed. KHOU 11 News asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to sum up the defense of the state’s law.

“There are two main things that we want to prove in this case. One that voter fraud is a serious problem in the state of Texas,” he said.

So KHOU 11 News requested a list of voter fraud cases in Texas to see the extent of the problem.

The total number of cases on the AG’s own list was 62 since 2002.

62.

VoterID Lawsuit

From yesterday's P-G:

Divided along party lines, Allegheny County's election board voted this afternoon to file a lawsuit challenging the state's new Voter Identification law.

Board chairman John DeFazio and county Executive Rich Fitzgerald, both Democrats, voted to sue, while Heather Heidelbaugh, the lone Republican on the three-member board, voted against the measure. Both Mr. DeFazio, of Shaler, and Ms. Heidelbaugh, of Mt. Lebanon, serve on the election board because they are at-large members of county council.

"We should be making it easier to vote," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "This legislation [the Voter ID law] is trying to deny that right and make it more difficult for people to vote."

The fact that Councilmember Heidelbaugh would vote against the measure is hardly surprising considering what's found on her election website:

Heather Heidelbaugh has been an advocate of smaller government, lower taxes and has stood up to those engaged in voter fraud around this Commonwealth.

As much as I like Attorney Heidelbaugh, she's blurring the lines here.  Her complaint against ACORN was about voter registration not voter fraud.

And there's scant actual voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Back to the P-G:

County solicitor Andrew Szefi said the lawsuit likely would be brought on behalf of both the election board and the county.

The heart of the county's argument would be that the state constitution sets just four requirements for voting eligibility: minimum age, U.S. citizenship, residence in Pennsylvania and a specific election district.

The new requirement that voters show photo identification before they can cast ballots should have been imposed via constitutional amendment, he said.

Here's Article VII Section 1 of the State Constitution outlining voting qualifications:

Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.

That's right. Nothing about showing any photo ID.

We'll see how it plays out in the courts.  But let's be clear.  This bill is not about "protecting the integrity of the election system" (with only 4 prosecutions of voter fraud out of the millions of votes since 2008?  C'mon.)  It is about making it more difficult for people to vote Democratic.

Simple as that.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I know both Heather Heidelbaugh (being a fill-in guest on 4802) and Andrew Szefi (I worked in an office where he was an attorney a long time ago) but I've had no contact with him in a decade.

Tony Norman And Chris Potter Agree!

I know both these guys.  I've had beer with both these guys.  Both were invited to my wedding (though only one had the decency to show - coughyerdeadtomenowpottercough).  And so I think I can say that they agree on many things.

But when both write about the same topic at their respective papers in the same week, something big is happening.

It's Voter ID time!

James O'Keefe's Voter Fraud Fraud

WND (aka Crazie Central) is on the story:

James O’Keefe and Project Veritas are demonstrating once again how easy it is to perpetrate voter fraud in states that do not require voters to show photo identification.

Last week, O’Keefe and his team went to Vermont and had no trouble getting ballots for both living and dead voters.

Really, last week?

That's just one questionable claim by WND and O'Keefe.

Voter Fraud! Or Maybe Not

Loyal wingnuts that they are, the Tribune-Review's editorial board warns us, yet again, about the rampant voter fraud:

Among the Obama administration's re-election cheerleaders, none is more duplicitous than Attorney General Eric Holder, whose sis-boom-ba on "voter rights" is sorely out of sync with factual accounts of fraud.

Last month the Justice Department blocked a South Carolina photo-identification law, insisting it makes voting more difficult for minorities. At a rally in Columbia, S.C., last week, Mr. Holder said defending that cause is "a moral imperative," The Washington Post reported.

But Holder's presumptuous intervention in South Carolina backfired. In response, that state's attorney general, Alan Wilson, did some digging and found that at least 900 dead people voted in South Carolina's 2010 election, writes Peter Hannaford for The American Spectator. Mr. Wilson is going to court to restore the law.

Here's Hannaford's piece - and it's interesting to note the unquestioned frames: It's voter fraud and if it's voter fraud, then it's voter fraud in favor of the Democrats.

Too bad the data isn't so clear cut.

VOTERFRAUDVOTERFRAUD!! VOTER FRAUD!

So voter fraud does exist!

James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas proved it.

By committing it.

Daryl Metcalfe's Zombie Lie

Today, we start with this from the Tribune-Review's op-ed page:

Naughty: The contention of the Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP that requiring voter identification at the polls will disenfranchise black voters is a red herring. Protecting the integrity of the franchise should be everyone's goal.

And that led us back to this Trib article:

The NAACP's Pittsburgh branch is mobilizing to oppose a bill that would require Pennsylvanians to show identification before voting.

The organization on Wednesday likened the importance of the effort to ones that resulted in the abolishment of poll taxes. Members called on city residents to sign and help circulate petitions. They called on ministers to shout it down from their pulpits.

"The African-American community across the country fought long and hard to be able to vote," said NAACP President M. Gayle Moss. "This is a tactic to reduce the number of senior citizen voters, African-American voters, who do not have cars or drive, and young voters."

And this one in the P-G:

Decades after the African-American community fought for the right to vote, a voter identification bill proposed for Pennsylvania could again disenfranchise black voters, members of the NAACP said Wednesday.

"We cannot let that happen," said M. Gayle Moss, president of the Pittsburgh branch of the NAACP.

Ms. Moss, joined by NAACP members and religious leaders, held a news conference in the Freedom Unlimited building in the Hill District Wednesday morning. Speakers urged the state Senate to halt progress of a voter identification bill and called the legislation a tactic to disenfranchise African-American, Latino, young and elderly voters.

Each points out that the legislation is from our good friend Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) and each offers up his defense. First the merely condescending response from the P-G:

In a phone interview Wednesday, Mr. Metcalfe called it a "laughable position" that people should not have to show identification before they vote. Showing a photo ID is already required for everything from getting a library card to flying on a plane, he said.

And he said it should be required to vote to prevent fraud, which he said does happen.

"It's really outrageous that anyone would claim that it is about anything but ensuring that we have integrity in our election process," he said.

To his far more insulting response in the Trib:

The legislation, he said, will protect those voters and ensure honest balloting. The Cranberry Republican said he was surprised at the NAACP's response.

"You have to question whether they want fair elections or want to have fraud continued to be perpetrated," he said.

There it is!  According to him, the NAACP does NOT want fair elections and they DO want continued voter fraud. Tucked in at the end of the Trib piece are the usual right wing suspects:

Metcalfe cited voter fraud arrests of ACORN workers in Pittsburgh and the submission by ACORN workers of 8,000 fraudulent voter registration forms in Philadelphia several years ago as evidence that the law is needed.

Too bad those arrests were not voter fraud - here's the Trib's own reporting of the Pittsburgh arrests:

A worker for a grassroots organization was so eager to fulfill a voter registration quota during the presidential campaign that she filed a fraudulent application in the name of a county elections employee, but got the Social Security number wrong, prosecutors said Thursday.

In all, seven canvassers for ACORN in Allegheny County are accused of forging 51 signatures and violating election laws in connection with last year's registration efforts, said District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

Zappala said a six-month investigation by county police and the Pittsburgh FBI office found clear evidence of an illegal quota system in use by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The investigation continues, and the arrests mark the end of only one phase, he said.

See that?  Nothing about voting.  And all about voter registration.  How would a photo ID at a polling place have stopped those ACORN canvassers?

It wouldn't.  And it's frankly dishonest of Metcalfe to use that evidence to support his legislation.

Hardly surprising, but only the P-G even gets close to calling Metcalfe out for his lie:

Although tales of voter fraud -- such as people voting more than once by impersonating others -- are common, verified instances of fraud are rare, Allegheny County Elections Division Manager Mark Wolosik said Wednesday.

But just how bad is this problem?  Well, there's this from State Representative Margo Davidson (D-Delaware):

In the 2008 presidential election, 5,995,137 Pennsylvanians cast ballots. Just four people have been prosecuted for voter fraud since the 2008 and subsequent Pennsylvania elections.

We saw this zombie lie bubble up last June.  Still a zombie, still no voter fraud.

Darryl Metcalfe and Voter "Fraud"

In my email box today I received this mailing from my state representative, Dan Frankel. It begins with:

Movement is afoot in the General Assembly to pass a bill that will make it harder for many people to vote, while at the same time wasting millions of dollars. House Bill 934 is a Republican-sponsored bill I oppose that would require every voter to provide unexpired, valid government photo identification issued by Pennsylvania or the federal government to participate in each election.

Frankel's mailing points out the whole purpose of the bill is to make it more difficult for some citizens to vote - all while fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

And who'll find it more difficult to vote? E. J. Dionne writing in the Washington Post about the efforts underway in many states to impose "Voter ID" laws asserted:

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

Again, think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

But let's get back to the PA legislation. Go click on the link - guess who the prime sponsor is of this odiousness?

Our good friend Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) and in a true Orwellian turn, defends the law as a necessary protection:

“Countless American patriots have and continue to put their lives on the line around the world to preserve our freedoms, including the freedom to privately and confidentially cast a vote at the ballot box," Metcalfe said. “Final passage of the Pennsylvania Voter Identification Protection Act will further uphold one of the most fundamental rights of American citizenship.”

By making it more difficult for people who'll tend to vote for his party's rivals, of course.

But does Metcalfe have reason to believe that Pennsylvania voting rights need to be protected? He thinks he does:

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler), the sponsor, said the measure was necessary to cut down on "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections."

Except he doesn't. From Frankel's mailing:

In the 2008 presidential election, 5,995,137 Pennsylvanians cast ballots, but from that year until now, just FOUR people have been prosecuted for voter fraud.

From a report by the Brennan Center for Law and Justice at NYU:

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

On his webpage, Metcalfe states that his legislation is "[m]odeled after Indiana’s photo identification law..."

Do we need to trace that law? I guess we do.

From the NYTimes, in an editorial about the latest round of Voter ID laws:

Many of these bills were inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-backed conservative group, which has circulated voter ID proposals in scores of state legislatures.

Ah, ALEC!

So when I asked here about any ALEC legislation in Harrisburg I guess we have an answer.

This Voter ID bill that is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist by making it more difficult for voters who may lean Democratic to vote.

Yes, that's what Metcalfe's patriots are protecting!

Oh, The Stuff The Trib Leaves Out.

Today, on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page, there's yet another lesson in political obfuscation.

The op-ed is a reaction to this opinion piece in the USAToday by former interim DCCC chair, Donna Brazile. She makes the case, so obvious to those of us watching, that the GOP is looking to block voters from the polls by forcing them to show photo ID. The voters the GOP is looking to block would, of course, tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

From the AP:

Empowered by last year's elections, Republican leaders in about half the states are pushing to require voters to show photo ID at the polls despite little evidence of fraud and already-substantial punishments for those who vote illegally.

Democrats claim the moves will disenfranchise poor and minority voters — many of whom traditionally vote for their candidates. The measures will also increase spending and oversight in some states even as Republicans are focused on cutting budgets and decreasing regulations.

Brazile talks Florida:

The Florida Legislature recently sent an overhaul of the state's election code to Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Among other things, this bill would slash early voting from 14 days down to eight. And it would, according to the non-partisan League of Women Voters, impose fines on voter registration drives for all completed voter registration forms that are not returned to the state within 48 hours — a big reduction from the current 10-day deadline.

Yet another hurdle: Voters who had moved to another county (potentially millions of people) would not be able to update their addresses at the polls on Election Day. Under the proposed law, these voters would have to cast a provisional ballot, which used to be cast when a voter's eligibility was questioned. Such ballots sometimes are not counted. Do we really want to see Florida's 2000 election controversy replayed?

In the states pushing for strict photo ID requirements, Republican lawmakers have argued that voter impersonators need to be stopped. Yet in Ohio or Wisconsin — two swing states where GOP legislatures are pushing for mandates — there is no record of this ever happening.

So Scaife's braintrust talks Florida, too:

Why, this has the potential to become a Florida 2000 election redux, the argument goes.

For the record, out of all the allegations of voter harassment in Florida back then, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found just two instances of "perceived" voter intimidation. The U.S. Justice Department found no credible evidence.

Notice, however, the subtle shift in charges. Brazile wasn't talking specifically about voter intimidation. The braintrust is, however. And then they change the subject:

But flagrant voter fraud is real. Writing for National Review Online, civil rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow provides some of the more egregious examples:

• A 2001 voter-registration drive among blacks in St. Louis produced 3,800 new voter cards. Not one was legitimate.

• Before the last presidential election, about 140,000 Floridians were registered in multiple jurisdictions.

• Rampant absentee ballot forgeries derailed the 1998 Miami mayoral election.

Let me just mention in passing that Peter Kirsanow, the guy quoted by Scaife's braintrust, serves on the advisory board of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Do I need to point out the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Scaife money the NCPPR has received over the years? Do I need to point out how that wasn't mention by Scaife's braintrust?

If, of course, you take a look at the first two examples used by Kirsanow and the Trib, you'll see that they're not about voter fraud. They're about voter registration irregularities. Unless they can show that the multiple jurisdiction data in Florida has led to people voting twice, they're not talking voter fraud here.

And that last one? Xavier Suarez, the winner of that overturned election, is a Republican.