Fresh off of telling women they should just “close your eyes” when they are forced by the state to have the government come between them and their doctor for a mandated ultrasound before being allowed to terminate a pregnancy, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is now just making stuff up concerning “voter fraud” in his state.
Comments highlighted by Steve Benen at Maddow Blog today suggest the Governor is willing to say just about anything to justify the disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restrictions just passed and signed into law by Republicans in the Keystone State…
When some of the precincts come in with a 112 percent reporting you have to scratch your head and say how does that happen?” questioned Governor Corbett.
At a certain level, that may seem persuasive. If there were precincts in the Keystone State that had 112% participation, then Republicans would have a pretty strong case for new measures intended to crack down on abuses.
But here’s the trouble: there are no examples of Pennsylvania precincts, at [any] time or in [any] election, coming in with 112% participation. Corbett appears to have simply made this up.
We thought we’d double check on that with Marybeth Kuznick, founder of VotePA, the non-partisan election integrity watchdog organization which has been fighting to improve the state’s electoral system — and help stop election fraud — for years now.
She concurs that Corbett’s statement is, as she described it to us, simply “ludicrous”…
When we asked her where the Governor might have come up with the evidence to make such a claim, she jogged her memory to come up with something.
“The only possibility where that might have come from, I recall in the back of my mind, there were incidents when there were votes in the electronic voting machines already on the morning of elections, back when we used to use the [e-voting systems made] by Danaher.”
“It wasn’t intentional fraud,” she explained, “it was when they went in to open the polls in the morning, did the ‘zero tests’ and found there were like 40 votes still on the machine from a previous election or something. And so those were cleared out.”
“That has happened on other machines as well, not just Danaher’s, such as the ES&S iVotronics many counties use now.”
She says that “definitely happened in Venango County in 2011. That was one of the things that caused so much alarm there last year.”
Readers of The BRAD BLOG will recall our detailed investigative series of reports on what happened in Venango County last year when a bi-partisan election board, led by Republicans in a very Republican area of western PA, bucked the county’s party establishment (and the legal threats from the voting machine company ES&S) to insist on an independent forensic audit of the county’s e-voting system after several recent elections had resulted in reported vote-flipping, zero votes for some candidates, and other serious concerns on the touch-screen systems.
The results of the audit found, among other problems, that the system was completely insecure and had, in fact, been “remotely accessed” on “multiple occasions”, including just days before the 2010 general election.
“Other than situations like that,” says Kuznik, “I know of no certified results that ever said there was a 112% turnout. That’s ludicrous.”
“Back in the 40’s, or something, when the party machines were much more entrenched than they are now, there might have been such incidents, but I don’t know why they’d pass a law now to do something about what happened in the 1940s,” she added.
“If they would just have half as much urgency — a 50th of the urgency — about these unverifiable DREs (Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen, voting machines), with known problems, that can really the effect the outcome of an election, we’d be getting something done here.”
Kuznik explained that “the Secretary of the Commonwealth confirmed they can’t prove a single instance of voter impersonation fraud [the only type of voter fraud that can possibly be deterred by a polling place Photo ID restriction], but they have many instances of these machines failing.”
Benen added a few additional comments of note in his article: “Indeed, Corbett was Pennsylvania’s state Attorney General, and before that, a U.S. Attorney. If he had found evidence of such obvious fraud, he had opportunities to investigate and prosecute. That never happened, because the fraud never took place.”
“It’d be less frustrating,” he writes, “if proponents of voter-suppression tactics were more forthright about their motivations. Instead of pretending he’s combating a problem that doesn’t exist, Corbett and his allies should simply admit what is plainly true: GOP officials are eager to block traditionally-Democratic constituencies from voting, and requiring voter IDs disproportionately affects the poor, the elderly, and minorities.”
“The facts are obvious,” Benen concludes with one final shot at the Big Government-loving Republican Governor. “You just have to open your eyes.”
Unless a successful legal challenge is made against the new GOP voting restriction in the important swing state of Pennsylvania, legally registered voters will be required to show a Photo ID at the polling place — or they will not be allowed to cast a normal ballot — for the very first time in the 2012 Presidential Election this November.
If there was an instance in which a 112% turnout was reported, it would not be unprecedented. But then there would be a much simpler explanation than non-existent “voter fraudâ€
Recall that back in 2006, Arkansas voted on the 100% unverifiable, ES&S touch-screen DREs.
The BRAD BLOG reported:
Of course, in that same report, it was revealed that whacky results go both ways on the iVotronic. In the FL-13 Congressional race, the iVotronic mysteriously lost 18,000 votes in a county with heavy Democratic registration, giving the Republican candidate a 356 vote victory.
In Waldenburg, Arkansas, a town of only 80 voters, mayoral candidate Randy Wooten received zero votes, although he swears he voted for himself.
But the real kicker, was the March 7, 2006 Republican primary in TX.
So my question to Gov. Corbett, especially in light of the fact that documented cases of actual in-person voter impersonation are about as scarce as hen’s teeth, if there were, indeed, some (any) precincts who reported a 112% turnout, what sort of voting machines were used?
Lovely, isn’t he? Question is, is he an idiot, or just careless with his disinformation (or both)?
With all the efforts to register voters by ACORN, SEIU, LaRaza, Working Familes Party, etc., etc., one would think that the paid volunteers would mandate that an acceptable voter photo ID would be secured at the same time.
One of Obama’s first acts was to bring the Census under White House control. Why? As a former ACORN trainer he knew the value of using trickery and fakery in the registration process, anything goes in the attempts to confuse the system, overload the system and sidestep the infrastructure that attempts to keep elections on the up and up.
Another reason the “112%” claim is idiotic is because if it were true it would still not be an argument for photo ID. It’s impossible to get 112% turn out from “impersonating” voters showing up at the polling place. Election workers cross off the name of each registered voter as they vote. If their name was already crossed off, the false-voter would be found out (or if the fake got there first, the real voter would complain). Voter fraud could never push the turn out over 100%, and couldn’t get anywhere near 100% without creating all sorts of evidence of the fraud — which we know doesn’t exist.
It is possible to get 112% through ELECTION fraud by election insiders (or hackers) stuffing ballot boxes or hacking electronic vote counting machines or central tabulators. Vote ID is useless against such fraud. The real remedy is paper ballots counted by hand in public on site on election night.
That would stop the sort of fraud that was used to steal the 2004 election in Ohio for Bush, and that is why Republicans would rather send us on the snipe hunt of “voter fraud”.
Gary Henderson @3, in addition to launching into yet another right-wing smear of ACORN, adds:
1. Why should any group devoted to registering the poor have to add the expense of obtaining state approved photo IDs for those who lawfully register to vote – photo IDs that can usually only be obtained from DMVs – when there is virtually no evidence of polling place voter impersonation that is the only type of voter fraud photo IDs can ostensibly prevent?
2. Please explain to me how those groups can obtain a photo ID for someone like 77-year old Bettye Jones, who moved to Brookfield, WI with her daughter. Jones, who was home-born in TN, has voted regularly since the 1950s. She possesses a valid Ohio driver’s license. She and her daughter devoted substantial time and expense only to learn from TN officials that, despite a “thorough search,” they cannot locate her birth certificate, according to her complaint. Without a birth certificate, Jones cannot obtain one of the official WI-issued forms of photo ID required to vote in the state.
3. Please explain why any American should now jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote — a right that has been exercised for more than two centuries without requiring photo ID at the polls?
I’m willing to bet that the mis-remembered statistic was regarding this;
http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy+%28Falkvinge+on+Infopolicy%29
European copyright reform failed with 113% voter representation – but this was not people at the polls – this was at the parliamentary level (IE – the equivalent of the senate). This is where real vote fraud happens all the time.
This would be the same Governor Corbett who, as Attorney General, refused to INVESTIGATE the sexual abuse allegations at Penn State, and then supported the ouster of Joe Paterno? Kind of puts his credibility in perspective, does it not?
Better call out the NAACP and the ACLU now because students will be forced to show picture ID’s to take their SAT’s because of CHEATING. BTW: In Mexico, any citizen of age 18 or greater must go to an electoral office in order be registered into the electoral census. Citizens receive a voting card (credencial de elector con fotografÃa), issued by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) that must be shown to vote in any election. The voting card also serves as a national identity document.