Darryl Metcalfe and Voter "Fraud"

In my email box today I received this mailing from my state representative, Dan Frankel. It begins with:

Movement is afoot in the General Assembly to pass a bill that will make it harder for many people to vote, while at the same time wasting millions of dollars. House Bill 934 is a Republican-sponsored bill I oppose that would require every voter to provide unexpired, valid government photo identification issued by Pennsylvania or the federal government to participate in each election.

Frankel's mailing points out the whole purpose of the bill is to make it more difficult for some citizens to vote - all while fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

And who'll find it more difficult to vote? E. J. Dionne writing in the Washington Post about the efforts underway in many states to impose "Voter ID" laws asserted:

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

Again, think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

But let's get back to the PA legislation. Go click on the link - guess who the prime sponsor is of this odiousness?

Our good friend Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) and in a true Orwellian turn, defends the law as a necessary protection:

“Countless American patriots have and continue to put their lives on the line around the world to preserve our freedoms, including the freedom to privately and confidentially cast a vote at the ballot box," Metcalfe said. “Final passage of the Pennsylvania Voter Identification Protection Act will further uphold one of the most fundamental rights of American citizenship.”

By making it more difficult for people who'll tend to vote for his party's rivals, of course.

But does Metcalfe have reason to believe that Pennsylvania voting rights need to be protected? He thinks he does:

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler), the sponsor, said the measure was necessary to cut down on "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections."

Except he doesn't. From Frankel's mailing:

In the 2008 presidential election, 5,995,137 Pennsylvanians cast ballots, but from that year until now, just FOUR people have been prosecuted for voter fraud.

From a report by the Brennan Center for Law and Justice at NYU:

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

On his webpage, Metcalfe states that his legislation is "[m]odeled after Indiana’s photo identification law..."

Do we need to trace that law? I guess we do.

From the NYTimes, in an editorial about the latest round of Voter ID laws:

Many of these bills were inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-backed conservative group, which has circulated voter ID proposals in scores of state legislatures.

Ah, ALEC!

So when I asked here about any ALEC legislation in Harrisburg I guess we have an answer.

This Voter ID bill that is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist by making it more difficult for voters who may lean Democratic to vote.

Yes, that's what Metcalfe's patriots are protecting!

Oh, The Stuff The Trib Leaves Out.

Today, on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page, there's yet another lesson in political obfuscation.

The op-ed is a reaction to this opinion piece in the USAToday by former interim DCCC chair, Donna Brazile. She makes the case, so obvious to those of us watching, that the GOP is looking to block voters from the polls by forcing them to show photo ID. The voters the GOP is looking to block would, of course, tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

From the AP:

Empowered by last year's elections, Republican leaders in about half the states are pushing to require voters to show photo ID at the polls despite little evidence of fraud and already-substantial punishments for those who vote illegally.

Democrats claim the moves will disenfranchise poor and minority voters — many of whom traditionally vote for their candidates. The measures will also increase spending and oversight in some states even as Republicans are focused on cutting budgets and decreasing regulations.

Brazile talks Florida:

The Florida Legislature recently sent an overhaul of the state's election code to Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Among other things, this bill would slash early voting from 14 days down to eight. And it would, according to the non-partisan League of Women Voters, impose fines on voter registration drives for all completed voter registration forms that are not returned to the state within 48 hours — a big reduction from the current 10-day deadline.

Yet another hurdle: Voters who had moved to another county (potentially millions of people) would not be able to update their addresses at the polls on Election Day. Under the proposed law, these voters would have to cast a provisional ballot, which used to be cast when a voter's eligibility was questioned. Such ballots sometimes are not counted. Do we really want to see Florida's 2000 election controversy replayed?

In the states pushing for strict photo ID requirements, Republican lawmakers have argued that voter impersonators need to be stopped. Yet in Ohio or Wisconsin — two swing states where GOP legislatures are pushing for mandates — there is no record of this ever happening.

So Scaife's braintrust talks Florida, too:

Why, this has the potential to become a Florida 2000 election redux, the argument goes.

For the record, out of all the allegations of voter harassment in Florida back then, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found just two instances of "perceived" voter intimidation. The U.S. Justice Department found no credible evidence.

Notice, however, the subtle shift in charges. Brazile wasn't talking specifically about voter intimidation. The braintrust is, however. And then they change the subject:

But flagrant voter fraud is real. Writing for National Review Online, civil rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow provides some of the more egregious examples:

• A 2001 voter-registration drive among blacks in St. Louis produced 3,800 new voter cards. Not one was legitimate.

• Before the last presidential election, about 140,000 Floridians were registered in multiple jurisdictions.

• Rampant absentee ballot forgeries derailed the 1998 Miami mayoral election.

Let me just mention in passing that Peter Kirsanow, the guy quoted by Scaife's braintrust, serves on the advisory board of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Do I need to point out the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Scaife money the NCPPR has received over the years? Do I need to point out how that wasn't mention by Scaife's braintrust?

If, of course, you take a look at the first two examples used by Kirsanow and the Trib, you'll see that they're not about voter fraud. They're about voter registration irregularities. Unless they can show that the multiple jurisdiction data in Florida has led to people voting twice, they're not talking voter fraud here.

And that last one? Xavier Suarez, the winner of that overturned election, is a Republican.