Voter ID Downside II

Voter ID Downside II — Probably more than 99 percent of our readers are strong proponents of photo voter ID and we recently carried a column by Bob Small that swims against that tide.

We are certainly not against a requirement to show a photo before voting, but we have become far less fanatical about it.

If the precinct workers are honest the rule is not needed and if the precinct workers are otherwise the rule is not going to matter.

See Georgia, which has a photo ID requirement for voting.

The concern we have is that Pennsylvania patriots are ignoring far more crucial matters regarding election integrity with their zeal for photo identification, namely state-wide certification of poll watchers and transparent election machinery and software.

Long-standing Pennsylvania law restricts poll watchers to the county in which they reside. What is wrong with state-wide certification for them? Why shouldn’t an appropriately certified Philadelphia Democrat be allowed to make sure things are copacetic in the voting in Franklin County? And vice-versa, of course. Only a racist can oppose such a thing.

Regarding transparent election machinery, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania — which appears to be better described as the Supreme Court of Soros– has blocked an audit of Fulton County voting machines.

The State Legislature wanted it. Fulton County wanted it. Commonwealth Court was OK with it. Why block it?

Well, the Democrat Party opposed it as did Dominion Voting Systems, the supplier of the machinery.

But why would they oppose it? All an audit would show was that the system was honest and the results were fair, right? RIGHT?

It shouldn’t need to be said but voting transparency should always take precedence over the secrets of corporations.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a white supremacist, and likely a homophobic misogynist who hates Mexicans.

Which gets us to a rather interesting thing going on in Pennsylvania legislature and might be the buried lead.

In April, the Pennsylvania Senate passed SB 106, an amendment to the state Constitution which would end separate elections for candidates for governor and lieutenant governor and have them run on a single ballot. It would be an unnecessary and insignificant change to how we are governed but the inside-baseball types thought it neat.

Anyway, in December, just before the session ended the State House added to the bill:

— A 21-day limit on emergency declarations by the governor.

— A requirement to present “valid identification prior to voting, regardless of voting method”

— The auditing of elections, including the administration of elections, certification of election machines, the accuracy of the list of registered voters, the administration of voter registration and election results.

The bill is now back in the Senate where it sits. The amendments require approval of the same wording in consecutive sessions of the legislature, and then approval by the voters via a ballot question.

Don’t expect them to happen anytime soon, but this does show that while there may be corrupt deep staters in the Republican Party, there are good guys too.

Voter ID Downside II
Voter ID Downside II

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: