Beaver County Reds – 4/7/12

This is at least the fourth BCR piece on this topic since January 26, 2012.  This piece pretty much regurgitates the talking points of the previous articles plus comments by Mr. Davidson on Facebook, so please read my critiques of “Voting Rights Protest vs. GOP in Rochester, Saturday, Jan. 28,” “Beaver Coalition Rallies for PA Voting Rights against Republican HB 934,” and “Elder Vogel Was ‘99% Against’ Voter Restriction but Votes Yes!” for most of my comments.  You’ll find more comments in the Facebook thread at the bottom of this critique.

As I’ve written before, don’t take Mr. Davidson’s or my word for what we wrote.  Please read House Bill 934 for yourself.

Instead of fighting what appears to be a reasonable law, why don’t these organizational experts help the alleged victims get the ID they need?

As I wrote in a previous critiques (here and here), I wonder if Mr. Spanik really knows with whom he is in bed when he stands with today’s labor union management and PDA – 4th CD leadership.  Most of my friends’ parents were Democrats when we were growing up, and I know I’m pretty safe saying they wouldn’t be caught dead with these folks.

Here is the Facebook thread of comments I mentioned above.  The comments are in reference to my critiques of “Voting Rights Protest vs. GOP in Rochester, Saturday, Jan. 28,” “Beaver Coalition Rallies for PA Voting Rights against Republican HB 934.”

Carl Davidson (February 3, 2012, at 10:24pm)

“Here’s how it works, RC. As one of the counties in the U.S. with the oldest population, a good number of our seniors live in assisted living facilities, and have left their old addresses, and many don’t have the new picture ID drivers licenses, either. Some of them were born at home, too, and lack birth certificates. Now thanks to homeland security laws, it’s not so easy to get a picture ID without other ID, especially if your current address doesn’t match the one where you owned a home for many years--and that’s assuming you can get transported to a facility that will give you an ID. This new law puts thousands of our seniors in this predictment. Why? Because many of them vote Democratic, and use early voting from their facilities to do so. This is the real target of this measure--real voter fraud in PA is minicule, you can count the cases on your fingers. I’m not fresh out of the pumpkin patch on these matters, and I assume you aren’t either.”

RWC (February 4, 2012 at 2:22pm)

“Mr. Davidson will be glad to know HB 934 appears to address the hurdles he mentioned for ‘our seniors liv[ing] in assisted living facilities.’

“As per HB 934, valid ‘PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION’ for voting in person includes ID issued by ‘A PENNSYLVANIA CARE FACILITY.’ When applying to vote by absentee ballot, ‘THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE ELECTOR’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER’ appears to meet the ID requirement. PA doesn’t have early voting so I assume Mr. Davidson meant absentee voting when he referred to ‘early voting.’

“In any case, don’t take Mr. Davidson’s or my word for what we wrote. Please read HB 934 for yourself. A link to HB 934 is in the subject critique.

“As for Mr. Davidson’s assertion ‘real voter fraud in PA is minicule, you can count the cases on your fingers,’ here’s what I wrote in the subject critique: ‘For the sake of argument, let’s defy history and logic and say voter fraud doesn’t exist. For ‘one of our most important rights,’ is Mrs. Shannon telling us we should wait until there is a problem, like latching a barn door after the horses escape?”

Carl Davidson (February 4, 2012, at 8:49pm)

“There’s only one way to see who’s correct on this argument. We’ll ckheck the numbers after the elections, as well as the number of complaints registered by those blocked from voting--assuming the bill is signed into law and in effect on election day.”

RWC (February 6, 2012, at 11:35am)

“Let’s hope the Beaver County Election Bureau collects and retains all the necessary data required for a proper analysis so we don’t need to rely on anecdotal evidence. In addition to at least a few years of historical (pre-HB 934) data, we’ll need data from some minimum number of election cycles under HB 934 rules to weed out potential anomalies and startup problems inherent with any new law. Without the proper data and analysis, each side of the debate can claim the vote count supports their position.

“As for which party’s candidates were most affected, that could be determined for voters using absentee ballots but not for voters who vote in person. Simply using voter registration data won’t work because BC voting results don’t always coincide with party affiliation, especially over the past several years. Though it varies a little, BC registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by about 2:1 and in the 2010 primary the party makeup of actual voters was nearly identical to the registration data. Despite the Democrat registration majority, in 2004 John Kerry barely beat George W. Bush in BC. After the 2005 payjacking incident and some criminal activity, BC voters mostly voted for Republicans for state and federal offices during recent elections. In 2010, the only Democrats running for a state or federal office who won in BC were U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire and two unopposed state reps.”

Carl Davidson (February 9, 2012, at 8:03pm)

“We’ll see soon enough, when long-time registered voters start getting turned away at the polls.”

RWC (February 10, 2012, at 1:05pm)

“Being a ‘long-time registered voter’ doesn’t make me a legal voter. The voter registration process doesn’t require proof of ID of any kind. Though the registration form asks for a driver’s license number if you have one or the last four digits of your SS number if you have one, neither is mandatory and the Election Bureau will still accept your registration and send you a voter registration card.

“As for ‘getting turned away at the polls,’ that’s unlikely based on HB 934. If a person doesn’t have an acceptable photo ID, there are seven other acceptable non-photo forms of ID the voter can present. Failing that, the voter can cast a provisional ballot. If the Board of Elections determines the signature on the provisional ballot matches that on the voter’s registration form, the ballot will be counted. (This looks like a loophole to me since registration doesn’t require proof of identification, but that’s what the bill says.) Failing that, the voter has six calendar days after Election Day to present proof of identification to the Board of Elections. If a person can show up at a polling place to vote in person, I think it’s fair to say he should be able to obtain acceptable proof of ID, especially with all the leeway provided by HB 934. I covered ‘our seniors liv[ing] in assisted living facilities’ earlier in this thread.

“Again, folks, don’t take my word for anything I wrote; read HB 934 for yourself. There’s a link in the critique at the beginning of this thread.”

In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>