Rally challenges voter ID mandate in Pennsylvania
By Brad Bumsted
Published: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
HARRISBURG — Supporters and opponents of Pennsylvania's voter ID law agree on one thing: Politics drive the battle over whether to keep the law that heads to court on Wednesday.
Opponents rallied at the Capitol on Tuesday, saying the Republican-controlled Legislature approved Act 18 to suppress voting in the Democratic stronghold of Philadelphia and keep President Obama from carrying the state in the November election.
Several speakers pointed to a June 23 comment by House Majority Leader Mike Turzai of Bradford Woods to the Republican State Committee: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”
“Mike Turzai confirmed it,” said Rep. Ron Waters, D-Philadelphia, chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus.
But Allegheny County Republican Committee Chairman Jim Roddey called a U.S. Justice Department investigation of Pennsylvania's law “an attempt by the Obama White House to get voter ID overturned.”
“It's pure politics,” Roddey said.
Another effort to block the law, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, gets under way in Commonwealth Court before Judge Robert Simpson. A rally opposing the law is scheduled at 1 p.m. Wednesday at Freedom Corner, the intersection of Crawford Street and Centre Avenue in the Hill District.
In March, Pennsylvania joined 15 states with photo ID laws. Starting this fall, Pennsylvanians must show either a driver's license, a state-issued ID card or a military, government, university or nursing home ID in order to vote.
The Department of State has estimated 760,000 people don't have state-issued IDs. But Secretary of State Carol Aichele, a member of Gov. Tom Corbett's Cabinet, said that number might be closer to 85,000 to 100,000 people when subtracting computer mismatches and people who moved out of state.
The 2010 Census showed 9.6 million Pennsylvanians 18 or older, and PennDOT's database shows 9.5 million licensed drivers, Aichele said.
“The law is about having fair and honest elections in Pennsylvania,” Aichele said. “Voter fraud has been part of the American experience.”
Protesters wielding placards chanted outside a Senate hearing room where Aichele spoke to reporters.
“The truth is, there has been election fraud in Pennsylvania,” said Stephen Miskin, spokesman for House Republicans. “We are honestly not certain why Democrats are fighting fraud and corruption tools.”
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.
Miskin cited extensive election fraud in a Philadelphia Senate district confirmed by a court in 1993. “This is an enfranchising law,” Miskin said.
Black leaders wielded strong accusations.
“It is a voter suppression bill,” said E. Richard Phipps of Penn Hills, communications director for the Western Pennsylvania Black Political Assembly.
“The voter fraud occurred right inside this Capitol building,” Waters said at the rally, pointing to where House and Senate members approved the bill.
“The voter ID law is based on a lie, told by liars,” said J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Pennsylvania NAACP. “Tom Corbett is a liar.”
Jane Kelley, a spokeswoman for Corbett, said he is “a man of unquestionable honesty and integrity.” She said the law “is designed to support the integrity of each vote cast by the eligible citizens of this commonwealth.”
Brad Bumsted is state Capitol reporter for the Tribune-Review. He can be reached at 717-787-1405 and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.