Category: Election Integrity

Election Integrity matters in national, state and local elections. Much of this concerns the 2020 election and matters involving Delaware County, Pa.

9.2 Percent Vote Fraud Pa.?

The Philadelphia Inquirer on Independence Day carried on its ever-less-read front page a story proclaiming “Voters Without PennDot ID: 9.2%”

It noted 750,000 registered voters in the state did not have driver’s licenses or other approved photo identification required for voting this November.
Now, some will say “That’s horrible! Three-quarters of a million people have been disenfranchised!! For Shame!
Others, however, will point out that dead people can’t drive.
Thank you again, Daryl Metcalfe.
9.2 Percent Vote Fraud Pa.?
9.2 Percent Vote Fraud Pa.?

Michelle Obama Supports Photo ID

Michelle Obama supports the use of photo ID.

At least she does for her book signings as has been revealed by Newsbusters.org.
Of course, getting a book signed by the first lady is a pretty serious thing. It’s not like they are trying to vote or anything.

So Why The Fuss About Photo Voter ID?

Well the ACLU and NAACP are now suing to get Pennsylvania’s popular voter ID law overturned by the courts. They are claiming that  law violates the state constitution’s ”free and equal” elections clause and may cause people to lose their right to vote.

Why don’t they work to get everybody eligible to vote a a photo ID? It really isn’t that hard to do. It’s as easy to get a photo ID as it is to go to a polling place.
Why are the partisan Democrat groups like the ACLU and NAACP — and have no doubt that they are partisan — so against photo voter ID?
I think we know the answer.

Voter ID To Get Trial Run Today

Administration officials are reminding voters who are coming to the polls for the primary election, today, April 24, that they will be asked to present photo ID as the Department of State embarks on a “soft rollout” of the state’s new voter ID law, says State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129). 

While ID will not be required for tomorrow it will be necessary in the November general election. People who arrive at the polls in November without valid ID will have the opportunity to vote by provisional ballot and present identification within six days to the appropriate county board of elections. 

Act 18 of 2012 requires registered voters to present valid photo identification every time they appear to vote and also requires those using absentee ballots to submit proof of identification. Valid forms of identification must include a name, photo and expiration date, except when an individual presents a military identification card. A driver’s license or identification card issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), military identification cards, cards issued by an accredited Pennsylvania higher education institution and licensed long-term care facility will all be accepted.

Pa Senate OKs Voter ID, Thank You Rogers Howard

The Pennsylvania Senate, yesterday, March 7, passed HB 934 that would require voters to present identification at polling places and in applications for absentee ballots. The vote was 26-23 with all Democrats opposed along with Republicans Stewart Greenleaf of the 12th District, and Mary Jo White of the 21st District,  Jane Earll of the 49th District.
Not voting was Republican Jane Orie of the 40th District.
The bill which was introduced March 4, 2011 by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) passed the state House June 23, 108-88 and had been languishing in the Senate to the dismay of Tea Party and other citizen groups.
In fact, it didn’t reach the Appropriations Committee until Dec. 14 where it stayed until Monday when it was sent to the floor with expediency.
Could the action be  coincidental with the fuss Rogers Howard, who is challenging Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi in the 9th District Primary, has raised about it?
One could think what one wants one supposes.
The bill allows for acceptance of non-photo ID such as utility bills, the casting of provisional ballots for those not having identification and allows names to merely “substantially conform” to those on the district register  rather than be an exact matches which is a good thing.
The bill now returns to the House for reconciliation.
Pa Senate OKs Voter ID, Thank You Rogers Howard
Pa Senate OKs Voter ID, Thank You Rogers Howard

Voter ID Bill Now Before Pa Senate

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives, June 23, passed, 108-88, a bill requiring most voters to present photo identification at every election.

The bill is now before the Senate.

HB 934 was introduced, March 4, by Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) and 47 co-sponsors including Steve Barrar (R) whose 160th District includes much of southwest Delaware County.

The bill requires “electors” i.e. voters to present a document issued by either the State of Pennsylvania or the United States  which has a photograph of the individual to whom the document was issued along with an expiration date.

It also requires that the name of the individual to whom the document was issued conform to the name of the individual as it appears in the district register — a point which could be an annoying surprise to many long-time voters.

The bill allows those who have a religious objection to being photographed to present a valid-without-photo driver’s license or a valid-without-photo identification card issued by the Department of Transportation. The exception appears to have been written with the Amish in mind.

Stop Election Fraud: No Voting Without ID

This is being republished with the kind permission of Chris Freind


By Chris Freind

I am not wealthy, but have recently acquired 22 domiciles throughout
Philadelphia. My real estate prowess has afforded me a unique
opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our citizens.

I can vote 22 times.

You see, I have staked out prime locations, from a cardboard box
under the Walt Whitman Bridge to a culvert on Cobbs Creek Parkway to a
burnt-out shell at 7th and Diamond. Yes, technically, habitating at
these locations makes me “homeless,” but I much prefer the term
“voter-enfranchised.” When you have such a love of democracy, how can
anyone have a problem with people who want to vote multiple times,
especially the homeless? (Although, in fairness, dead people should
only be able to vote once).

Incredible as it seems, folks in Pennsylvania don’t have to show any
voter identification whatsoever at the polls, with the exception of the
first time, in which a non-photo ID, such as a utility bill, is all that
is needed. And even that’s a stretch since some politicians ignore the
law and permit people, who have never produced identification to vote.
So in Philadelphia, among other places, voters whose “address” is a park
bench or condemned house are regularly pulling the lever.

This system has made multiple-voting quite easy and affords a vote
not only to those who aren’t registered, but those not legally permitted
to cast a ballot — the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants, since we
aren’t checking citizenship status, either.

*****

Because former Governor Ed Rendell vetoed legislation requiring
voters to show proper identification, election fraud remains rampant.
By definition, allowing people to vote who are not properly registered
is disenfranchising those who play by the rules and cast a ballot the
right way. Bottom line: every illegal vote nullifies one made by a
law-abiding citizen.

And make no mistake. It has gotten so out-of-hand that illegal
immigrants are voting in large numbers throughout the country. Think
about that — citizens from other countries are quite possibly deciding
the outcomes of American elections.

One only has to look to Florida in 2000 to see a real-world example.
President Bush won by a mere 537 votes out of 5.8 million cast. As
governor of Texas, the Spanish-speaking Bush had always been popular
with Hispanics, particularly Florida’s Cubans. Given that Florida has a
large illegal immigration population, it is not unrealistic to think
that at least 537 illegals voted for Bush over Al Gore –the difference
in determining the Presidency of the United States. But since we have
so many “sanctuary cities” –places where it is prohibited to ask one’s
immigration/citizenship status — there is no way to determine who is an
American citizen, let alone who is validly registered.

Rendell’s rationale for vetoing the bill was that it would have
created voting problems for the homeless, the poor, displaced victims of
natural disasters, and those without access to valid ID. And now that
another Voter ID bill is working its way through the legislature — this
time with a solid shot at becoming law given Gov. Tom Corbett’s support —
we are hearing the same old arguments.

Here’s a question. How many natural disasters hit the Keystone
State? And even if one does, how does that obviate the need for an ID?

As far as access to an ID, is it really so excruciatingly difficult
to produce a passport, driver’s license, or employee, government or
student photo identification? Getting past the rhetoric, it has yet to
be shown how a voter identification requirement negatively affects
students, the disabled, and, as the ACLU puts it, “disproportionately
impacts the elderly, the working poor, and racial minorities.”

Since identification requirements would apparently discourage people
from voting, thereby “disenfranchising” them, here’s a solution: let’s
have no rules at all. That way, at least no one will be offended….well,
except law-abiding Americans. But hey, what do they matter, since
they’re the only major constituency with no rights.

*****

Buzzwords like “voter disenfranchisement” aside, the Pennsylvania
Voter Identification Protection Act, sponsored by State Representative
Daryl Metcalfe, is long overdue legislation with which an overwhelming
number of voters agree. What could be easier and more common sense that
simply documenting who you claim to be when participating in the most
fundamental American right?

The true motivations of those opposed are painfully obvious: the vast
majority of non-registered voters have Democratic leanings. They have
become an integral part of the Democratic base, and as such, their
voting process must be obstacle-free if the party is to grow.

Translation: when you can’t legitimately win at the ballot box, go to Plan B — steal the election.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of Pennsylvania.

*****

It’s a shame there hasn’t been a meaningful debate on this. But
rather than discuss the Voter ID bill on its merits, the Left has chosen
to throw out inflammatory accusations of “voter disenfranchisement.”

At one point in our history, Americans were subjected to
discriminatory treatment which truly disenfranchised them, such as being
required to pay poll taxes and take literacy tests. Thankfully, such
practices have been rescinded, and comparing an ID bill to what our
ancestors experienced is a downright insult to those who fought for the
right to vote.

And as long as we’re on the subject of voting reforms, maybe an
amendment to the Voter ID bill could be offered that would eliminate the
option of single-lever voting. Pulling just one lever is far too easy,
and takes the thinking out of voting — which is, obviously, never a good
thing.

Americans have become far too complacent when it comes to voting and,
as a result, we are reaping the consequences of our corrupted system.
Good policy should never come down to just a “Democrat” or “Republican”
one-second pull of a lever. Instead, making citizens vote for
individual over party may yet inspire them to take a more avid interest
in who will be their representatives.

The American voting system isn’t perfect, and Voter ID laws (which
have been ruled constitutional) will go a long way to restoring the
integrity so crucial in the power to choose one’s own destiny.

Having no voter identification requirement is a disgraceful blow to
those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that Americans could enjoy free
and fair elections.

In a society where one must show ID to enter office buildings,
airplanes, trains or even buy antihistamine at the pharmacy, it is time
to give the same level of importance to voting. The current practice — a
truly disenfranchising one — must end in order to preserve our
hard-earned freedom.

Adolph Says Vote Likely On Pa. NoBamaCare Bill

The man accused of bottling up a bill that would make much of Obamacare hard to enforce in Pennsylvania told the Delaware County Patriots, Thursday, May 19, that it will likely come up for a vote this year.

State Rep. Bill Adolph (R-165), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee has been accused of sitting on HB 42 by Tea Party activists. The bill has been tied up in Adolph’s committee since Feb. 8.

HB 42, introduced by Matthew Baker (R-68) on Jan. 19, says A law
or rule shall not compel, through penalties and fines, directly or
indirectly, any individual, employer or health care provider to
participate in any health care system.

It also specifically
says that an individual or employer may pay directly for lawful health
care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for
doing so; and specifically allows  health care providers to accept
direct payments without penalties. It also prohibits state law enforcement and regulatory agencies from
participating “in compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy”
that would compromise the “freedom of choice in health care” of any
resident of the state.

Adolph told the group, which met at Knights of Columbus hall in Newtown Square, that the biggest budget problem facing the state was the expiration of federal stimulus money. He said  last year’s $28 billion budget contained $3.1 billion of the fed dollars.

The $27.3 billion budget proposed by Gov. Corbett places a heavier burden on the state taxpayers despite it being smaller. House Republicans have tweaked the budget by easing some of the cuts the Governor had made to education while adding cuts to welfare. Adolph said the House budget gives state higher education 75 percent of what it had gotten last year, while Corbett would have cut the outlay in half.

Adolph said that the House budget actually ends up being few hundred thousand dollars less than the Governors.

Concerning the questions fielded by Adolph — and HB 42 was one — he said:

— He supported in principle privatizing the state-owned liquor stores but would not commit to any specific legislation as the “devil was in the details”.

— He supported giving school boards the power to furlough teachers for economic reasons. He, however, ducked the other half regarding his position on ending the requirement that school districts and municipalities pay prevailing wage for renovation and construction projects.

–He is not familiar with the First Suburbs issue which is starting to be discussed in Tea Party groups and appears to be an attempt to use government programs such as Section 8 housing to economically “diversify” Philadelphia’s older suburbs in accordance with the preferences of academics and activists.

–He supported abolishing the inheritance tax.

–He voted for and supports HB 1330, which expands the state’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit, and that he was only aware of the highlights of SB 1, the school choice bill bottled up in the Senate. He said he supports school choice in principle.

–That teachers should not be allowed to strike.

— He supports voter ID.

— He believes in state sovereignty.

— He supports cutting the size of the state legislature.

The only matter on which he incurred the crowd’s wrath concerned state pensions, and his unwillingness to condemn former State Sen. Bob Mellow’s $300,000 pension in significantly vociferous terms. He said Mellow’s pension plan had been grandfathered from before 1974, and that he should get it. He did not seem to get that it may fairer and more just to change the terms of an old poorly conceived contract rather than make a widow who was not party to it lose her home trying to fulfill it.

What Christopher Coates Told Commission

Justice Department official Christopher Coates told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, yesterday, that prejudice and racial bias run rampant in the department from leadership to staff, and civil rights violations against white voters are routinely  and premeditatedly ignored.

Coates is a former ACLU lawyer and long-time Justice Department investigator who ran the Department’s Voting Section from 2008 until December 2009 when he was transferred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Carolina.

Coates was subpoenaed by the Commission about the time of his transfer to testify regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case but was directed not to comply by his superiors.

Coates told the commission he is finally testifying to correct information Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez had supplied the Commission, the final straw apparently being an Aug. 11 letter in which he again denied a request that he be allowed to testify.

Coates is claimed “the protections of all applicable federal whistleblower statutes” before testifying.

The New Black Panther Party case stems from an incident Election Day 2008 at a polling place at 1221 Fairmount St., Philadelphia. SamirShabazz,  and Jerry Jackson made racially disparaging remarks to voters while dressed in military garb, with Shabazz carrying a nightstick.

The Justice Department filed suit and won a default judgment against them when they ignored the charges. This judgment, however, was dismissed in May 2009.

Coates said he believed the case was dismissed due to “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against”.

Coates had earlier described his experiences prosecuting Ike Brown, a black  who chaired the Democratic Executive Committee of Noxubee County, Mississippi. White voters and candidates had complained to the Justice Department in 2003 that elections had been administered in a racially discriminatory manner and asked that federal observes be sent to the primary run-off elections.  Coates said that what he observed during the election was some of the most “outrageous and blatant racially discriminatory behavior at polls” in his 33-plus years as a voting rights litigator.

He wrote a preliminary memorandum summarizing the evidence and recommended an investigation under the Votes Right Act with a civil injunction against Brown and the local Democrat committee to stop the pattern of discrimination.

This was forwarded to Joe Rich, who was then chief of the Voting Section, who sent it on without the part in which an injunction was recommended. He said he later learned that the Rich had said he omitted the information because he didn’t believe an investigation should be made. Approval, however, was obtained albeit finding personnel willing to perform the investigation was not easy.

Coates said one social scientist responsible for researching a jurisdiction’s history flatly refused to participate. An attorney with whom Coates had previously worked told hm that he had not come to the Voting Section to sue African American defendants. Still another attorney told him that he was opposed to bringing voting rights cases against blacks until the socio-economic status of blacks in Mississippi was that same as whites there.

Still, with the help of one attorney and paralegal new to the Voting section, and the support of the Civil Rights Division front office a suit was filed and Ike Brown was removed from superintendent of the Democratic Executive Committee of Noxubee County.

Coates said, however, that a young black paralegal who volunteered to assist on the case was the subject of vicious harassment by co-workers including an attorney, as was  his mother who was also Civil Rights Division employee.

Coates said because of his experience in the Ike Brown case he began to ask new applicants for trial attorney positions if they would be willing to ignore color and prosecute claims of discrimination against white voters. Word got back to Loretta King who had been appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights by President Obama. Coates said she called him to her office and specifically prohibited him from asking such questions. He said Ms. King had been highly critical of the filing of the Ike Brown case.

Coates also explained that the reasons cited by the Justice Department for dropping the New Black Panther Party case were unreasonable. He said, for instance, that citing the determination of a local police officer who ordered Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson to stay because he was a certified Democrat Party poll watcher was something he had never seen in his 13 years with the Department of Justice. He said police officers are not trained in what constitutes a voting rights violations and that local police have on occasion had sympathy for the persons who were violating the voting rights act.

Coates also testified that Voting Rights section was willfully refusing to enforce the National Voter Registration Act, which includes a requirement that states ensure voter registration list remove the names of those no longer eligible to vote in a jurisdiction.

Coates said that Julie Fernandez who was appointed as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights by Obama said that “the Obama Administration was not interested in that type of issue.”

The Voting Section began filing cases under the list maintenance provision during the Bush Administration. Coates said that there were states that had reported that no voters had been removed from the list in the last two years.

“I do not believe that Voting Section has recently been involved in any list maintenance enforcement during the Obama administration,” Coates said.

According to Coates’ testimony, acts of intimidation are far more common that is popularly believed. Coates testified that during his tenure as chief of Voting Section a prolonged investigation concerning Wilkinson County, Mississippi, a majority-black county, reveled that the home of a white candidate for local office was burned. No one was ever prosecuted for the burning.

He said a bank that was being used to store absentee ballots in majority-black Hale County, Alabama was burned in attempt at election theft. Again, no one was ever prosecuted for the arson.

A pdf file of Coates testimony can be found here .

And despite, the strong Philadelphia angle there was nary a mention of what Coates said in either today’s Philadelphia Inquirer or Delaware County Daily Times.

Obama DOJ Not To Enforce Law Requiring Cleaning Voting Lists

The Obama administration has directed Department of Justice staffers not to enforce the law requiring  lists of dead or inactive voters be expunged, according to J. Christian Adams, the  DOJ official whose May 14 resignation stems from the administration’s squelching of voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for an incident that occurred on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia.

The requirement is mandated by the 1993 Motor Voter Act.

Adams says the order was given last November at a meeting of the DOJ’s Voting Section convened by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political appointee.

Adams quoted her as saying “We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.”

Adams says the jaws of Voting Staff collectively dropped.

Adams says he expects the matter to be corroborated by the many honest staff members in attendance, and notes that since the announcement the DOJ has not filed a single case regarding the Motor Voter provision.

Even more damming, Attorney General Eric Holder has dismissed a case started by the Bush Administration regarding voter roll expunging in Missouri. Adams says that in many places in Missouri there are more voters than humans with heartbeats.