They Call Me Larry Magic—A Real Example of How the New PA Voter ID Requirement Is Harmless
After reading "Maggi Announces 'Let Larry Vote' Petition Drive" in Peters Patch recently, what I thought was a harmless law would now be a problem. This could affect someone I know. My father-in-law goes by the name “Jack,” short for “John.” My wife’s uncle “Thomas” uses his nickname “Mickey,” which is based on his middle name. So I thought I’d do my own research, and get to the bottom of this.
First, I went to my trusted web resource, www.votespa.com, and started reading.
Just to make sure, I also checked on Larry Maggi’s party website, www.padems.com/content/voteridinfo, for comparison.
Before this law was enacted, photo ID was already required on the first time you vote at your new polling place. This new law simply builds upon that, and it says you have to show ID every time, in addition to the first time, and it adds new forms of ID that are considered valid.
In short, valid IDs are photo IDs that are used in an official capacity with a traceable serial number issued either by the U.S.—like passport or military ID, or issued by state of Pennsylvania Driver's License or PennDOT ID card, or an employee ID from any level of government, or an ID from a long-term care facility, or an ID from a school or college.
A valid “alternative” ID needs only a name, a photo and expiration date that are current. An exception is that a PA Driver's License or PennDOT ID card can be expired, but no more than a year.
So let’s work with our gentleman who has never filed for an official name change, and let’s assume he calls himself Larry Maggi sometimes. We should further assume that Larry has not moved since the spring primaries of 2012. Larry will show up this fall at his local polling station and records will show that he voted at least once before in the spring.
I am quite sure Larry Maggi did this since he wants to be our U.S. Congressman and he may have cast a vote for himself in the primary. Now even if Larry has a couple IDs with the name “Larry Magic” due to some special interest or hobby, it is reasonable to think that Larry has ID with his name corresponding to what we as voters saw on our ballots last November during the county commissioners' race.
Larry has a history at this polling station, he is not a new voter, but his name doesn’t match his ID exactly. I thought this could be a problem so I asked a local Judge of Elections Laura Zajdel, since she would be responsible for deciding herself or escalating to the county elections office.
Laura shared with me that visual identification would be important for the inspector and Judge of Elections. If the name is “Larry Maggi” on the ID versus “Lawrence Maggi” on the voting record book, he gets his card and votes.
Visual and birth date comparisons would also be possible. The Washington County Elections Office is readily available to assist judges in special cases. They have been readily available, painstakingly accurate and helpful to us on Election Day.
Sometimes people are simply at the wrong polling station, or have recently married without registering their married name. There has been a case like this and the woman was able to vote under her maiden name, giving her time to re-register her new name for the next election.
According to Larry Spahr, director of the Washington County Elections Office, the state of Pennsylvania is preparing a uniform set of directions for all the election boards. Common sense will prevail.
As anyone can see, discretion and evaluation of the Judge of Elections is required, but the law does say that the name on the official voter list must be substantially conform to the ID presented. As a final test, the signature should reasonably match the signature on file, printed on the official voter list. Once again, discretion and evaluation of the Judge of Elections is required.
As a final recourse, you can still vote believe it or not, on a provisional paper ballot. You must then affirm within six calendar days of an election, either in person at your County Board of Elections or by sending the board an electronic, faxed or paper copy of an affirmation—that you are the same person who appeared at the polls on election day and cast a provisional ballot and, if this applies, that you can’t afford to get proof of your identity without paying a fee. You can be prosecuted for perjury if you give false information.
If you need to update your name because of marriage or a life event, simply fill out a voter registration form and make sure your names match with your ID. There are many locations with voter registration forms, and the consensus among poll workers is that you do it yourself even though other options and agencies may exist. If you need an ID, or you have doubts about your ID, you can call the Department of State's Voter ID hot line at 1-877-868-3772.
In conclusion, some in your circle of friends may call you Larry, but no one will keep you from voting. Please note that neither luck nor magic are required, only common sense.
ctdad
12:38 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Still, we are fixing a problem that hardly exists. It is my understanding that the estimates of voter fraud in the last Presidential election was in the hundreds across the entire country - not really a problem. Obviously, rigging an election via voter fraud is probably the least effective method of doing so. But be that as it may, i think implementing this during a Presidential election year was short-sighted. If the consensus is that this is indeed a worthwhile mandate, at least bring it in during an off-Presidential election year. Estimates of voters without ID in the state range from several thousand to several hundred thousand. Even if the low-end is true, and lets assume that it is, why not allow for a year to get the proper ID? Especially if we really aren't accomplishing any substantial goal? And please, I have heard the arguments about what you need ID for. I'm just puzzled as to what our return on investment is with this legislation.
imout
12:55 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Obamacare, the biggest tax increase in history and the government control of 1/6th of our economy was able to be enacted by having just one vote to break the fillabuster. That one vote was Al Frankin. Without Frankin, the bill doesn't pass. He was elected by 215 votes out of the nearly 3 million votes cast. 215 votes has changed the course of US history. Yes, Dave, evry vote matters and none of us should have our vote negated by one vote cast by someone not meeting the voting requirements. Maybe you don't care about the integrity of your vote, but don't belittle the importance of mine.
ctdad
1:58 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Hmm. "Yes, Dave, every vote matters." I never said it didn't so not sure what your point is with that. And I certainly am not belittling your vote, didn't say that either. In fact, you will notice that I didn't even disagree with the idea of voter ID, my point was that I felt it would have been better implemented over time to allow for people without ID the opportunity to get one. I think having as many people vote as possible is paramount to our democracy. Also, what do you mean when you say, "none of us should have our vote negated"? Not sure how that jump happened - it seemed like you are implying that I think that is somehow "okay" which I don't. So let me clear this up. 1) I agree that every vote counts. 2) No one's vote should be negated. 3) I am not belittling your vote.
imout
2:15 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Dave, you said that the problem hardly exists. So it exists. Period. Then you said it really isn't a problem. I pointed out that even a .007% "problem" can have and did have a huge impact. The problem needs to be corrected. You prefer to correct the problem later rather than sooner. That only leads to more disenfranchised voters because unqualified votes negate qualified votes. Presidential or local elections are both effected. I might argue that since "all politics are local" it is better to make the changes now rather than during local elections since the outcomes of those elections have a more direct impact on our lives. You don't cite any evidence for your position of this being a inconsequential problem. I will: The national nonpartisan organization Project Vote estimated that in 2008, ACORN perpetrated 400,000 fraudulent registrations. (US News) I'd say that's a problem. Most importantly, NO ONE will be turned away from voting as the article points out. Provisional paper ballots may be used. Additionally, absentee ballots may be used and mailed prior to election day.
imout
2:55 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
To answer your question directly (I re-read your post), our return on investment of this legislation is the integrity of our representative democracy.
proud American
3:04 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
people have had over 8 months to get their ID straighten . Anyone working on the board of election can tell you how many deceased people that are still on the books as well as voters who have moved away years ago. Organizations like ACORN wouldn't have any problem using this to get what they want. One photo ID one vote
ctdad
3:17 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
I've also said that I am not necessarily against this legislation. In fact, it is hard to believe that you can vote without ID. I have no idea, did we ever need ID? It's just curious that all of a sudden we need this legislation right now. Let's get it right and let's make sure as many eligible voters vote as possible in the Presidential election. As far as what you cited, you state it is only "estimated" which gives it no more credence than the "estimate" that there are several hundred thousand people without ID in PA. (Which I do not believe. I'm very cynical this way, I believe very little I read on the internet. Also, the estimate was for registrations, not votes. If you register 400,000 fraudulent voters, you have to find 400,000 people to cast their vote, right? Or 1 person willing to vote 400,000 times. Still, a pretty monumental task.) Again, I do not disagree, I just am not in favor of the haste since it seems elections have gone on for years without needing ID and it seems like things have moved along pretty well. Do you at least agree that I was not belittling your vote? I may read what you have to say but I am pretty much done. Don't forget your license in November!
imout
4:17 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Yes, you did need an ID - First time voters have always been required to show ID; so, this is nothing new. No, that's not the point. If of those 400,000 registrations you get 10% of them to follow through then that is a pretty big voteing block. Again it's not about the numbers. It's just common sense that we make certain that voters meet voting requirements. It's the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men where a little voter fraud is OK(as long as it is for the right party). I agree that you may not have tried to belittle my vote, but being on the wrong side of this issue does belittle every valid vote, especially since you pointed out it is a problem, yet one you'd wait to fix. Me, I like to solve problems early before they get worse. That's why I stay in good physical shape, see my doctor regularly, eat right, change the oil in my car, keep my house and yard well maintained etc.
imout
4:17 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
It costs a whole lot less in the long run to be proactivley solving problems than to let them fester. Lastly, voters will have had about 10 months to get an ID(free of charge for indigent or those without previous proper ID, $13.50 for those with previous acceptable IDs). That is more than a reasonable amount of time. Also worth pointing out, there was no news of any problems during the primaries and ID was required then too as I am certain you recall from voting in the primaries (right?). One last thing to chew on: It isn't such a bad idea that you should have some skin in the game, so only property holders and the gainfully employed should be allowed to vote - just thinking out loud.
Kenneth J Murdy
9:00 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Photo ID to VOTE? I recently hired a company for trash collection service at my home and was asked for a drivers license (photo id). Get real people, it is the 21st century.
Riley Monaghan
2:40 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Voter Fraud isn't a real problem. You can parrot what you hear elsewhere, but it isn't. It is hard to carry out, rarely accomplishes anything, and if caught the fines and punishment are severe.
That is why it is so rare. "Evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often."
The flip side of this is that restricting access to vote could affect a lot more people who have a constitutional right to vote. You might not want them to vote since you disagree with them, but imagine how mad you'd be if you couldn't vote when you wanted to.
Riley Monaghan
2:40 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Estimates are that thousands of voters who otherwise COULD vote will be turned away in PA. Talk about disenfranchising voters. More than that, it will completely delegitimize the entire political process. Think of it as the next stage of gerrymandering. Instead of carving up districts to ensure victory, parties in power will just figure out how to make it harder for the other party to vote.
If you wipe away the fog of political competitiveness that is clouding your judgement, it is really impossible not to see this is unfair. Blocking thousands of votes to stop a few makes no sense.
Anthony Brown
7:50 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Still believing that voter fraud and potential voter fraud does not exist?
http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2012/08/13/when_1099_felons_vote_in_a_race_won_by_312_ballots/page/full/
Lets get our head out of the sand and find out how many true unaddressed hardship cases that actually exist- and then help those poor folks out- in the meantime- lets clean up the voter roles and preserve the sanctity of OUR vote.
Anthony Brown
7:51 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
So- what is the lefts plan to safeguard the integrity of the vote ?
What plan have they put forward other than insisting that cleaning up the voter roles is unneeded ?
Voter fraud does exist and I cannot fathom all of these folks fighting so hard against efforts to safeguard the integrity of the vote,
http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2012/08/13/when_1099_felons_vote_in_a_race_won_by_312_ballots/page/full/
My favorite quote from the article:
Wasserman Schultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.
But voter fraud involves that right, too. "When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting," write Fund and von Spakovsky. "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it."