Voting rolls cleanup
Pennsylvania's move to join a multistate alliance focused on cleaning up voter-registration rolls is a positive step, but it's likely to induce fits of anger and shouts of “Disenfranchisement!” from those leftists who believe that people should vote, and often, in every election.
The coalition of almost half of all states cross-checks voters' names to catch people who register in more than one state and dead people who aren't removed from voter rolls. Officials this year reportedly have identified 5 million questionable registrations in 22 states.
Ensuring the accuracy of voter rolls, proponents say, does not trample access to voting except for those who, whether out of ignorance or intent, abuse the system. Nevertheless, the same people who demonize voter IDs, as they have in Pennsylvania, also demean efforts to clean up voter rolls.
Never mind Pennsylvania's own mandate that counties check yearly for voters who have changed addresses or died, says Jim Montini, Westmoreland County's director of elections.
In Virginia, only weeks before its gubernatorial election, that state's Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the Board of Elections from purging up to 57,000 names from the state rolls, The Washington Times reports. Even removing illegitimate voters is unacceptable to those who hold open the door to double-dealers.
That's because the integrity of voting rolls is meaningless for those who put winning, any way they can, above everything else.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- An NLRB ambush
- The 2015 Connellsville budget: Take a closer look
- The Thursday Wrap
- A ‘warming’ wake-up call: Models aren’t foolproof