Expert says population without IDs overstated
HARRISBURG — A statistician hired by the state has criticized the methodology of another expert who claims that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters lack the photo identification they would need to cast ballots under a pending law.
William Wecker testified on Thursday about his review of Philadelphia statistician Bernard Siskin's report during a Commonwealth Court trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the photo ID law on constitutional grounds.
Wecker said Siskin overstated the number of voters without IDs by failing to subtract those who have died, moved out of state or are barred from voting because they are incarcerated felons.
“He's not ascertained that they're even alive,” he said.
Wecker, who is based in Wyoming, claimed Siskin's report also did not adequately reflect voters who have acceptable IDs from non-government sources such as the armed forces, universities or assisted living centers.
On cross-examination, a lawyer for the plaintiffs countered Wecker's review by focusing on weaknesses in his own approach to assessing the influence of those voters.
Washington lawyer Michael Rubin said outside the courtroom that Wecker showed only “a tiny sliver” of voters identified in Siskin's report who may have other valid ID.
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 â 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.