Share This Page

Secretary Aichele — Please don't play Holder's game

| Monday, Aug. 6, 2012, 8:53 p.m.

“If we can head off fraudulent votes, we shall carry the day.”

— A. Lincoln

In 1858, in correspondence to a colleague regarding his Senate race against Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln expressed his concerns regarding his Democrat opponent's strategy of using fraudulently cast votes to sway the election. Today, we continue to find ourselves in a struggle to secure honest and fair elections.

Without question, Pennsylvania's Voter ID law undermines the Democrats' long-standing strategy of using voter fraud to secure electoral victory. Artur Davis, former Democrat congressman from Alabama and the man who officially seconded Obama's nomination for president of the United States, recognizing the need for Voter ID, wrote the following: “(V)oting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights — that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.”

Unfortunately, President Obama's politicized Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, will not stop at simply ensuring that a blind eye is turned to the numerous instances of voter fraud nationwide. It also attempts to remove all obstacles in the path of the “increase the vote through fraud” strategy. After filing a lawsuit against Florida over its steps to remove noncitizen and deceased voters from the voter rolls and legal actions filed against numerous states over Voter ID laws, it is Pennsylvania's turn to be added to Holder's list of targets.

Recently, DOJ issued an onerous and politically motivated demand for documents to our secretary of State regarding Voter ID. Pennsylvania is the first state outside the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act (protecting minorities in states with historical racial discrimination in voting) to be targeted in such a way. Of course, Pennsylvania was not part of the Jim Crow South, but lack of authority is immaterial to this DOJ. Holder's demand ostensibly accrues from 42 U.S.C. 1974; however, this statute simply requires the retention of election-related records for 22 months following an election. Pennsylvania's multiple personal-identification databases fall well outside the scope of this statute, as do documents related to press releases issued by the governor.

Holder's Pennsylvania actions are just plays out of a well-established political playbook. Play One — ignore that voter fraud exists; Play Two — file numerous, expensive legal actions; and Play Three — call anyone in favor of an open election a racist. Play Three conjures the worst of our history just to foreclose mature debate.

If the commonwealth complies with Holder's demands, DOJ will certainly institute yet another costly Voter ID legal action. The DOJ, the ACLU and the NAACP have a well-timed, well-coordinated, multicourt strategy designed to burden each state brazen enough to ask for validation that a purported voter is, in fact, who he says he is.

In Holder's game, only those who need the votes of the dead or of fictional characters are winners. Secretary Aichele — you don't have to play, so please don't.

Kathleen Jones Goldman is chair of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the Republican National Lawyers Association and counsel at the law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. She lives in Mt. Lebanon.

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.