HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » NO voter fraud in Pennsyl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:11 AM

NO voter fraud in Pennsylvania? duh!

Now, that Eric Holder announces an investigation in the bogus "voter fraud' claim
behind the 'voter ID bill' in Pennsylvania,
Now, that the state supreme court will be ruling on this,
Now... they admit there's no voter fraud in Pennsylvania...
Now... Duh!

And still, still the idiots rant and rave about the need for such ID.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_no_in_person_voter_fraud.php

10 replies, 1438 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply NO voter fraud in Pennsylvania? duh! (Original post)
noel711 Jul 2012 OP
southernyankeebelle Jul 2012 #1
femmocrat Jul 2012 #2
Ednahilda Jul 2012 #3
caraher Jul 2012 #6
Igel Jul 2012 #8
noel711 Jul 2012 #4
itsrigged Jul 2012 #5
malthaussen Jul 2012 #7
inamatteroftime Nov 2012 #9
inamatteroftime Nov 2012 #10

Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:17 AM

1. SUPRESSION

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:14 AM

2. Good find! Thanks, noel.

I linked to it in the PA forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10742017

The state has signed a stipulation agreement that there is no voter ID fraud in PA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:31 AM

3. Oops!

I guess this was a little bitty mistake on the part of PA officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ednahilda (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:59 PM

6. Perhaps not

The same thing happened in Indiana - the Secretary of State in testimony admitted they knew of exactly zero voter fraud cases where picture ID would matter, yet the court upheld the law in the face of a suit from the League of Women Voters. So I suspect they realize it doesn't damage their legal case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ednahilda (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 03:19 PM

8. How so?

They had no evidence that there was fraud, so they couldn't claim fraud had occurred. They weren't involved in other states' investigation of cases of voter fraud, so they couldn't claim they were involved. Had they done either, it would have been an easy win for the plaintiffs.

However, since they're not claiming there is no voter fraud, the plaintiffs can't claim that that the ID is unnecessary because there's no evidence of voter fraud. The plaintiffs can't go up to a official and say, "So, tell me, have you any direct evidence of voter fraud in any other state?" "No" is stipulated, and the defense attorney will just say, "This is stipulated, your honor," and the judge will tell the plaintiff to move on with something relevant.

Trying to show from a lack of evidence that something in a specific instance might happen is facile; we know that there is voter fraud, we've pointed out instances of (R) doing it, allegedly by accident, if nothing else. But claiming, given a lack of evidence, that something might happen is also facile.

Trying to show that something hasn't happened given a lack of evidence is pointless.

A state doesn't have to have the reason we think they have, or even the reason they tell voters they have, for doing something. Neither do lawyers. They just have to support the reason they tell the court. Lie through your teeth to each other and the media (just allow discovery and make sure such information is sufficiently complete and accurate), but tell the truth to the court.

If I were PA, I'd say that the Constitution has certain requirements for voter eligibility. It doesn't specify how to ensure those requirements are met but the state has the authority to ensure the requirements are met and this is how the state has decided to do it. It may have done it one way before, now it's doing it this way. It can be partisan. The state's interest outweighs the harm done to individuals, and all they have to show is that there is no disproportionate impact or that there are sufficient measures to mitigate any disproportionate impact. They will do this in part by claiming that the numbers bandied about are not the numbers the court should accept as true, but the maximum possible numbers and that the true numbers are much, much smaller. Probably also that the state provided sufficient time for those lacking ID to obtain ID, engaged in sufficient publicity measures, and provided sufficient opportunity for obtaining the ID. If some didn't obtain ID they were negligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:12 PM

4. During the primary this past spring...

polling places were told to use the ID check..
not officially, just as a 'test' so the voters would know what to expect....

Well.. in my little tiny rural village, I guess the voters gave the
election judges hell on wheels...
It wasn't just me to let them know how this stinks to high heaven.
At the end of the day, the local election judges were pretty much
feeling beaten to a pulp by the populace.

Because.. in our teeny township is there no frickin' fraud;
everyone knows every one else.
And if someone new moves to town, everyone knows it.
THAT's the beauty of our system:
it's up to the local authorities to get to know the local residents,
and to use the signature check against the voters as they sign in.
That's called 'community.' Hmmm, sounds communist...

And even in larger, urban precincts, the local pols get to know
who lives where, and spot a newbie right off the mark.

But these lunatics are afraid that there are black panthers
lurking around every corner.
Sadly.. there are the deluded who believe anything.
And even if this 'fraud' bill goes down,
there will surely be many who still believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:19 PM

5. Maybe they are not looking for the real fraud... VOTING MACHINE FRAUD...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:45 PM

7. Pennsylvania, a microcosm of the country

I've always thought that PA's schizophrenic nature ( qv "Pennsyltucky") serves to make PA a microcosm of the nation. And since we let the RW rascals take over the joint, the stuff that has been going on here (fracking, drug test laws, obligatory ultrasound laws, voter supression, and all that other good stuff) seems to me to be a glorious illustration of what the GOP would do to the rest of the country if they only had the power. Other states may stand scrutiny for this or that, but PA really stands out as having the whole menu of the Brave New World shoved onto it. Something in which I guess we can take some perverse kind of pride.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noel711 (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:03 PM

9. Reported it here...

voting.section@usdoj.gov

Providing comment from video originator from here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/06/1156736/-EVIDENCE-2012-Voting-Machine-Switching-Obama-vote-to-Romney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inamatteroftime (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:11 PM

10. And received acknowledgment from...

Voting Section (CRT) <Voting.Section@usdoj.gov>

Hope people will act on all suspicious activity, shine a light on it, bring attention to bear to those who can do something about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread