GOP Rep. Warren Kampf (R-Chester) offered some counterintuitive justification for PA’ s Voter ID law, saying that he believes the law may actually boost voter turnout during a town hall meeting in Phoenixville Monday evening.
The Phoenixville Patch had the story, reporting that Kampf, the incumbent in PA-157, said, “Georgia has a very similar law. They’ve had it for six years. And they had it in 2008 and in those communities which often are said to have been impacted by Voter ID laws, the turnout was actually far greater than it should have been demographically.”
The comparison Kampf draws fails to take into account vital information, however, as noted by the Huffington Post. For instance, in Georgia the voter ID law was implemented about two years before the next presidential election — not three months.
Furthermore, the increase in voter turnout to which Kampf alludes was more likely a result of a focused effort by the Obama campaign to register voters in the area, as opposed to a direct or even indirect result of the Voter ID law. And, as reported earlier today, the AFL-CIO estimates around 20 percent of the state doesn’t have valid ID.
“There isn’t a demonstrated situation where these sorts of laws have disenfranchised people,” he added. “And, honestly, I’m beginning to feel like this law may actually enfranchise people. [Though] I can’t guarantee that,” Kampf said.
His opponent Paul Drucker responded to the comments in a press release, calling Kampf’s comments “preposterous” and “insulting.”
“He owes an explanation and an apology to the voters of the 157th District,” Drucker said. “The current administration has admitted that it lacks evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Despite this fact, Kampf and his GOP colleagues voted for this legislation which robs citizens of their right to vote and costs taxpayers $12 million.”
Drucker also said he is launching a Voter ID help line, accessible to all voters of any party affiliation in the district. He also said he plans to contact them directly by telephone and mail.
“I have spent my life standing up for the rights of others as both an elected official and attorney. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. I choose to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.”
Loading ...
10 Responses
Indiana has a voter ID law, and Obama won that state for first time since 1948. So much for voter suppression.
PJ, Thank you for your diligence, interest, and information. I appreciate your post and agree with you 100%. Men and women have died for the right to vote. Something William apparently can’t understand.
Keith the Candidate Rothfus: Why do you support Turzai’s bill to suppress the Senior vote? Are you anti-senior? Are you anti-Veteran? Time to get some courage, show independence and stand up to Boss Turazi for Western PA Seniors who should not be denied their right to vote! Do you really believe in Democracy?
Well, good people will complain BECAUSE it may take a long while and some money ($50 for me) to get a birth certificate from another state. AND Women may have to prove their name thru changes for marriage and divorce (all of them). AND to prove residency means young adults living at home have to go to PennDOT with mommy or daddy and THEIR proof of residency and current ID to sign for sonny or sissy. ALL of these indignities to get a VALID Photo ID. Who decides what proof is valid? Some sweetheart or some schmuck at PennDOT. It is literally a crapshoot. The officious clerks in my local office insisted on a birth certificate from the State of California, which does not issue birth certificates, even remarking,”San Diego, that’s not even in the United States, is it?” Another time they questioned my birth name, intimating that I might be a Mexican terrorist. THIS LAW discriminates against people who use public transportation (one in five in Philadelphia) and every sort of minority (40% of Hispanics already registered, but lacking photo-ID.) This law is STEALING people’s CITIZENSHIP! Republicans are NOT ASHAMED of this action. They think they are very clever to have made up a legal way to cheat voters. My own experience with fraudelent voters (voting early and often) is that to-a-person, THEY were Republicans, some who owned senior or handicapped facilities and got residents to sign their absentee ballots, then filled them in for them. How convenient that such patients may have their facility issue their photo IDs. Another loophole in this law.
PJ McGill, although voting is fundamental in a representative republic, individually, voting is a privilege, not a right. Otherwise, non-citizens, minors and felons would have to be allowed to vote. In fact, there would be no voter registration requirement at all, or any requirements to sign the poll book, etc. Indeed, no rights are absolute.
Your point about voting irregularities seldom being intentional (and thus strictly meeting the definition of “fraud”) is an acknowledgement that what is generally called “fraud” is much more commonplace if we include other irregularities, intentional or not. See the recent official investigation of voter fraud and other irregularities in some precincts the Primary Election alone in Philadelphia County, for example: http://media.philly.com/documents/Voting+Irregularities+Report.pdf.
Mary forgot to also mention that in The Myth of Voter Fraud [http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100774960], Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. … Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout.
I was really surprised that Mr. Cawley, in a Deposition, stated that, “the right to vote is not a fundamental one”, to which Mr. Walczak countered, “the right to vote is not only fundamental, it’s foundational”.
I also question why this Act did not promulgate Rules and Regulations. I guess that those who were pushing for this Act wanted to expedite the enactment and enforcement of this Act, and did not want to be encumbered with something so trivial as Rules and Regulations, like other Acts. Had this Act required Rules and Regulations, this process would be going on now, rather than litigation to block it’s enactment.
I could not believe that Mr. Cawley said that, ‘the burden to obtain (or secure) adequate (appropriate/required) ID is, in numbers, insignificant, therefore the Law should stand.’ As far as Mr. Cawley is concerned, he really does not care if a few hundred thousand, or so, will not be able to vote. And,throughout the trial, the Commonwealth was unable to produce any definitive numbers, one way or the other, as to how many voters would be negatively impacted by this Act.
As far as I’m concerned, this litigation is not about the million, or half-million, or hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised, but rather this litigation is about the ONE voter, who will be disenfranchised by governmental interference, in not being able to exercise their Constitutional Right to Vote!
Voting is a Right, a fundamental Right, which should not be abridged by either bureaucracy or legislative process.
If the Commonwealth wanted to implement a requirement to produce photo ID to vote, so be it, but it should have been phased in over a two or three general election cycle, thus affording everyone the opportunity to secure the required ID.
And, yes, I attended the Hearings(s)every day.
The “good story” was written by this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Spakovsky
It’s a great idea. We have always had to show our ID at the polls in West Goshen Twp. I don’t see why honest citizens would complain.
Great article today at national review.com on this issue. “Getting it wrong on voter ID”. Explains where assumptions of ID-less % came from. Explains factual evidence from other states who have put such laws into place.
Increased turnout out’s not the problem. The problem is increased turn-away.
“offered some counterintuitive justification ”
I’d replace “counter-intuitive” with “lying bullsh*t”