The Battle for Ballot Integrity in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania is, for the moment, ground zero in the battle over voter fraud. In March, Pennsylvania’s legislature enacted a law that requires identification for voting. The ACLU has sued to enjoin enforcement of the law; a trial on its lawsuit began today and is expected to last for around a week. This illustrates how low the ACLU has fallen. Voting illegally–that’s a “civil right!” But how about not having your vote canceled by the ballot of an illegal voter? Is that a civil right? Naahh.
At the same time, Eric Holder has announced that the Department of Justice is investigating the state of Pennsylvania to determine whether the law might violate the Voting Rights Act.
As always, the Democrats are furiously demagoguing the issue. This morning, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email titled “BREAKING: Department of Justice Investigating Pennsylvania’s Voter Suppression Tactics.”
The idea that a photo ID requirement constitutes a “voter suppression tactic” is ridiculous. I have to show an ID to buy beer at a liquor store. Is that a “beer suppression tactic?” Is it a “travel suppression tactic” when I have to produce identification to board an airplane? I am required to show ID to shoot a firearm at our local range; is that an insidious form of gun control? Should Eric Holder be investigating to see whether the Second Amendment is violated by such requirements?
The Democrats have always been over the top, but this is simply insane. In the Democrats’ lexicon, making sure that only qualified voters cast ballots constitutes stealing elections. Whereas supplying the winning margin through illegal votes is democracy in action.
It is hard to imagine how Pennsylvania could have gone farther to assure that every legitimate voter can, with no difficulty, vote. Not to mention the fact that if 10% of adult Pennsylvanians don’t have photo IDs, and therefore can’t buy alcoholic beverages, fly on airplanes, cash a check, purchase a firearm, or otherwise participate in modern life–an absurd claim–the law will allow them, finally, to emerge from the shadows. If the Democrats were not engaging in contemptible demagoguery and actually cared about the constituencies they claim to represent, they would hail such legislation as a giant step forward.
Here in Minnesota, we too are fighting the battle over ballot integrity. For years, a large majority of Minnesotans have favored a photo ID requirement. As you probably know, we have had at least one major election–Al Franken’s “victory” over Norm Coleman--that almost certainly was swung by illegal votes (not in the recount phase, but on Election Day). Our legislature passed a photo ID bill, but our Democratic Governor, flouting the will of a clear majority of citizens, vetoed it. So now the measure will be on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment. Our Democratic Secretary of State re-named the proposed amendment to make it less appealing to voters; thus does the establishment pull out any stops necessary to preserve the option of voter fraud.
In 2008 75% of new 100,000 Philly registrations were found to be illegal. Acorn turned in most of those. Election fraud will doubtless be the single biggest news item this election considering the Chief Community Organizers relationship to Acorn, the unions and the dem Secretaries of State.