Voter ID idiocy: A bad idea spreads
Democrat Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald's decision directing Allegheny County's community college and Kane Regional Centers for senior citizens to issue all-too-vulnerable-to-tampering voter IDs is so stupid that even the Democrat-dominated City of Philadelphia — long vote-fraud headquarters for Pennsylvania — won't follow suit.
So what does the willingness of officials elsewhere in the state to consider emulating this bad idea say about their legal acumen and commitment to electoral integrity?
Mr. Fitzgerald maintains these voter IDs — on loose-leaf, 8.5-by-11-inch paper and available to virtually anyone who wants one — comply with the letter of the state's voter ID law still wending its way through court challenges. Yet Philly's own lawyers can't say whether Fitzgerald's plan is legal, so that city's encouraging obtaining IDs through PennDOT.
The Pennsylvania Department of State says the law allows accredited colleges and senior centers to issue permissible IDs to help colleges students and nursing home residents. Fitzgerald's plan thus surely violates the law's spirit — and the resulting dubious IDs surely make vote fraud more, not less, likely.
Yet he says he's had inquiries from Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland counties about his voter-ID end run. Montgomery County has approved a similar plan and Northampton County's mulling one.
Seems Fitzgerald's politically motivated absurdity is contagious. And it's electoral integrity that stands to suffer from this insidious illness.
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.