"PA To Lower Requirement For Voter Photo ID" By Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars

[applegrove]

PA To Lower Requirement For Voter Photo ID

By Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/pa-lower-requirements-voter-photo-id

"SNIP.......................................


My guess is, the Corbett administration is trying to sidestep a possible court ruling invalidating the photo ID requirement, and they're counting on the fact that a lot of people still won't be able to make it to the PennDOT facilities:


The Pennsylvania Department of State announced Friday that the state will offer a new photo identification card that will spare voters from having to obtain birth certificates and Social Security cards in order to vote next November.

The new voter ID cards, good for voting purposes only, will be offered at PennDot driver licensing centers beginning the last week in August, to registered voters who can provide a date of birth, a Social Security number and two proofs of residency, like utility bills.

Until the new cards are available, PennDot will continue to demand a Social Security card, a birth certificate, and two proofs of residency to receive its official nondriver ID.

............................................SNIP"

[meow2u3]

1. This ID law should be tossed out

...as the unconstitutional piece of bullshit is is. Even the PA Constitution guarantees free and fair elections without interference from either civil or military power.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28N65192F9034-4811DA8A989-F4EECDB8638%29&db=1000427&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT30275192121217&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.04&service=Find&spa=pac-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0

5. Elections


Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

Constitutional requirements for qualifications for voters:

1. Qualifications of electors


Every citizen twenty-one years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.

1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month.

2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election.

3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28N64BFEC0034-4811DA8A989-F4EECDB8638%29&db=1000427&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT63165282221217&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.04&service=Find&spa=pac-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0
I don't see anywhere in the PA Constitution that states the requirement of government-issued photo identification, unless some rethug altered the Constitution while no one else was looking.
Note: the 21-year-old requirement was before the 26th amendment was passed.

[applegrove]

2. +1000

[freeandequalpa]

8. Pretrial briefs

The parties positions on these constitutional arguments are discussed in their pretrial briefs, which are available to review here (with some commentary by me): http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-parties-pretrial-briefs/

[robts5299523]

17. +100

[Sugarcoated]

3. The wife of a state Rep who's running came to my door

and said if the name on your voter id doesn't match the name on your drivers license exactly you an be denied voting. For example, I use my middle initial on my voter id and not on the dr license, so she strongly urged me to re-register to vote without the middle initial.

[applegrove]

4. That is just sick.

[LiberalFighter]

5. I would verify that with someone with more facts.

The definition of matching may not be as strict as thought. What needs to be determine is what constitutes the voter's name substantially conforming to the id. For instance, a middle initial should not be a substantial part of the name.

[freeandequalpa]

9. Too much discretion

The law defines an acceptable photo ID as one that, among other requirements:

"shows the name of the individual to whom the document was issued and the name substantially conforms to the name of the individual as it appears in the district register;"

The law contains no definition of the term "substantially conform," leaving poll workers like myself with substantial and, in my opinion, dangerous discretion to make the call.

Here's the law: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/2012/0/0018..HTM. Scroll down to the section in bold (z.5) to see what I am reading. Also note that anything is brackets in this document is the language of the previous law and has been deleted from the new law.

[LiberalFighter]

16. You need to review this with someone within the county Democratic Party

I don't know how PA does their pollworkers. Here in Indiana, we have Election Boards that have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican and the County Clerk that make decisions. In our county I believe determinations are mostly in agreement by everyone. The only instance that I know of that does require a unanimous vote is using voting centers. We have specific examples of what constitutes a match on names. And I believe reasonable.

If you work as a poll worker and receive training I would ask questions regarding this issue as well as find out what you can from the Democratic member of whatever election board in your county about this issue. Also, find out specifically what you can do if anyone from the opposing party abuses their power as a pollworker.

[freeandequalpa]

19. In my precinct, the buck stops with me.

I am the Judge of Election in my voting precinct (that's the fancy name they give the person elected to run the polling place), which means that, if there is any dispute about whether or not a name on a photo ID "substantially conforms" with the voter's name in the poll book, I get to make the call as to whether the ID is valid and the voter can cast a "live" ballot, or whether the voter must vote on a provisional and take it up with the County after the election. So, in my precinct, I get the final word, even if one of the other poll workers or watchers complain. I am guessing that my interpretation of "substantially conform" is going to be broader than the definitions employed by Judges of Election in other precincts.

The key issue, then, will be making sure the Democratic Party has a procedure in place to track which voters are forced to use a provisional ballot so that we can encourage and help those voters to follow-up with the County and press to have their provisional ballots counted. So, for instance, if a Republican Judge of Election makes Jane Smith vote provisionally because her ID says "Jane Smith" but her registration says "Jane R. Smith," we need poll watcher in the precincts to record the voter's information. That would: (1) allow us to fight like hell to make sure her provisional ballot is counted; and (2) have the information necessary to sue if it is rejected.

[drm604]

6. It will be impossible for PennDOT to supply enough voter IDs in the time remaining.

This was posted on FaceBook.
https://www.facebook.com/daylin.leach/posts/10150922523515672

Numerous sources are reporting that 186,830 registered voters in Philadelphia do not have the needed photo ID.
...
Pa's website shows that there are 5 photo license centers in Philadelphia. The centers vary in the days and hours when they are open for photos but assuming that each is open 48 hours a week (which is actually an overestimate) then the 5 of them combined are able to provide photo IDs for 240 hours a week.

It's being reported that these new IDs will be available starting the last week of August. So starting the last week of August and counting up to and including November 6 (election day) these people will have a period of 10 weeks and 2 days during which they can obtain an ID in time for the election. Multiplying that by the number of hours available a week, we get 2,480 hours. So, if every one of those 186,830 voters try to visit a Philly photo ID center in that time period, the centers will have to issue 75 IDs an hour, meaning that each individual center will have to issue 15 an hour or one every 4 minutes. This doesn't include the normal traffic of people renewing their driver's licenses.

Keep in mind that these photo license centers are usually packed with people renewing their drivers licenses. Even if every single one of these voters got together the necessary paperwork and went to a PennDOT photo center, a large number of them will still be disenfranchised because PennDOT won't be able to supply the needed IDs. This is just Philadelphia. There are 750,000 voters statewide that currently lack the needed ID and it's unlikely the available photo centers statewide will be able to service all of them between now and election day.

[freeandequalpa]

10. Closer to 1 million

The Petitioners' pretrial brief notes that, according to a survey by an expert they hired, there are approximately 1 million registered voters in Pennsylvania who lack an acceptable photo ID.

The pretrial brief available here: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-parties-pretrial-briefs/

The expert report is here: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/BarretoReport.pdf

[drm604]

11. The post was referring only to Philadelphia.

Philadelphia apparently has around 186,000 who lack the needed ID. I assume the poster used Philadelphia as an example because it was easy to count up the number of DMV photo centers and do the math.

But yes, the state as a whole has many more than that and I'm sure the problem is similar across the state. I go to the one in Norristown every few years to renew my driver's license. It's always packed and I have to sit for an hour or more waiting my turn. Add in large numbers of people who need a voting ID and chaos will ensue.

[Igel]

13. And yet the number is wrong.

The report the number comes from says that's likely to be the maximum number of those lacking ID.

The report discusses error, which is something you need to do if you want to be taken seriously outside a courtroom or online discussion group. (I try to get my students to think about error in their labs, and they can't. The concept splats on their teflon-coated brains and slides off without a trace, leaving not so much as a smudge. Teaching analysis of error in the subject I teach, a required course, is a state-mandated requirement in Texas.)

So, error. The number includes people who have moved away. Students, esp. Drexel, UPenn, every year thousands graduate and move away. Every year thousands of them remain registered and no longer have state-issued PA ID. Then there are the residents who move out of state. I never unregistered myself in Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, California, or New York. If not for voter registration purges, I'd still be registered in MD from 30 years ago.

It includes people who married and changed their names but didn't check the right box when they reregistered.

It includes people who moved between precincts and registered under a slightly different name. Or died. My father's probably still registered in AZ, he died 2 years ago. My mother was registered to vote for a long time after I had her driver's license yanked because she was incapacitated; since the court also declared her ineligible to vote, I only assume somebody else deregistered her. Maybe she's still registered.

It includes people with IDs that are acceptable under the PA law but which are not state issued. It includes other groups, as well.

The report authors tried to include every registered voter without that particular form of ID. They tried to make the number as big as possible, because that's how many people could, possibly, be affected. Also because a lot of such research is what I call "advocacy research." The numbers aren't interesting for understanding people or society, not for theory or validating a hypothesis or producing a new one. The numbers are useful in trying to change policy or participate in "relevant" discussions, to provide support for a view that's fairly subjective.

The real number, the authors said, was almost certainly lower. But you have to read all the way to the end of the abstract for that--and who has time to read an entire, whole, paragraph?

[drm604]

14. I was referring to a FaceBook post.

The number the poster used is what's being reported by the media. Beyond that, I don't know.

So I guess you'll have to give me an F professor. .

If you'll notice, I posted this in DU, an online discussion group. So no, I wasn't trying to be taken seriously outside of an online discussion group.

The point is that there are an undetermined number of Philadelphia people, possibly as many as 186,000, who lack the proper ID. If the correct number is half, or even a quarter of that, the 5 DMV photo centers, which are already packed daily with people renewing their licenses, would not be able to supply the needed IDs in the time remaining. So any claims that the removal of the birth certificate requirement will make it possible for anyone who wants to get an id are dubious.

[freeandequalpa]

15. We have the numbers

According to the Secretary of State's own press release (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bz-1YRHzEOsqME5yeVd2X3RKMUU), of the 186,830 in Philadelphia without an PennDOT ID, 50,648 were inactive, leaving 136,182.

According to the Petitioners' pretrial brief at pages 5-6 (http://pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Preliminary-Injunction-Brief-copy.pdf), the Commonwealth excluded from its numbers approximately 500,000 registered voters who have an expired PennDOT ID (that is, one that cannot be used as voter ID). They also excluded 130,000 registered voters who are not listed in the PennDOT database as having a PennDOT ID, but who claimed on their registration form that they did have a PennDOT ID.

So the total number of registered voters who do not have a PennDOT ID that can be used to vote may well be much higher.

[freeandequalpa]

18. How about this report?

The survey conducted by the experts retained by the Petitioners appears to have been designed to take into account the issues you raise. It concludes that between 890,325 and 1,220,075 registered voters in PA (who are legitimate PA voters) do not have an acceptable form of photo ID under the law:

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/BarretoReport.pdf (footnote 14).

[freeandequalpa]

7. Smacks of Desperation by the Commonwealth

Think about what is going on here. A group of voters who do not have one of the approved forms of photo ID under the new law sued to challenge it. They note that, under PennDOT's rules, in order to obtain the "free" photo ID card offered by PennDOT, they have to provide a copy of their birth certificate. But several of the plaintiffs cannot provide a copy of their birth certificate because the states in which they were born decades ago cannot find them. Therefore, not only do they not currently have one of the approved forms of photo ID, but they cannot get one, meaning they are disenfranchised by the law.

So what does the Commonwealth do? One week before the lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial, it announces for the first time in the pretrial brief that it filed in court that it will create a new ID card that people without birth certificates can obtain. It then argues that the plaintiffs are not disenfranchised by the law because they can get one of these new ID cards that did not exist at the time they filed suit and that will not even be available until the end of August.

In other words, this is a Hail Mary attempt by the Commonwealth, which clearly is concerned that it is going to lose the lawsuit next week, to salvage the photo ID law. In fact, the Commonwealth went so far as to concede in its pretrial brief that "significant barriers to the acquisition of a photo ID to vote” existed before they came up with this new ID card. You can read more about it here: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-parties-pretrial-briefs/

Also, note that the Commonwealth admitted in writing that there is no evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the only kind of fraud that a law requiring voters to show ID at the polls possibly could prevent: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-commonwealth-stipulation/. But don't even get me started on that . . .

[drm604]

12. That's my impression.

They're trying to find a way to meet the birth certificate objections while still suppressing the vote.

This does remove the birth certificate problem but still leaves an inconvenience, which is major for many, which will suppress the vote. Also there is what appears to me to be an insurmountable problem with DMV resources. As my post #6 in this thread shows, it will be impossible for the DMV to supply enough photo IDs in the time remaining before the election. I'm hoping that this has been realized by those bringing the legal challenge.