Last Saturday, I attended the annual Legislative Breakfast the League of Women Voters of Monroe County puts on at my local library. Two PA State House members were there, my own freshman Republican Representative Rosemary Brown of the 189th District, and the Republican unofficially considered her mentor (that's putting it euphemistically compared to how local Democrats usually refer to them), Mario Scavello of the 176th District.
Many issues were touched upon, from redistricting to property taxes, but of special interest to the League and myself were suppressive voter ID bills being pushed in the PA State Legislature. Both Rosemary and Mario voted in favor of the PA House version of the voter suppression bill. I spoke to Rosemary for the first time over the summer at a local July 4th event where I was volunteering to register voters.
At the time, I first asked whether she felt it was a moral decision to vote to spend millions on voter ID measures while at the same time voting to slash spending for programs that educate Pennsylvania's children. Then, after she gave me the robotic response she had been programmed to give to answer any question on the voter ID bill (the lack of proof of voter fraud means it's out there and we just don't know it, what a load of crap), I asked her about how she voted on some amendments to the bill.
Keep in mind, Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states clearly, "Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage," so there was and is a real question of constitutionality regarding these laws in my state above and beyond the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed by the US Congress.
Many amendments regarding who would be exempt from showing photo ID at the polls were considered, so I asked Rosemary about what I saw as some inconsistencies in her votes on these amendments. She voted for an exemption for those whose religion prevents them from having their picture taken, which she explained as adhering to the guaranteed freedom of religion. That was understandable, but when I asked what her constitutional reasoning was for voting for an amendment that exempted seniors voting in the assisted living facility where they live, all she was able to produce was a blank stare. I tried to question her further, but I honestly began to get the impression that I knew more about what she voted for than she did, and went back to registering voters.
Now fast-forward back to last weekend and the event hosted by the League of Women Voters. Given my previous experience with Rosemary Brown, when I got the opportunity to submit a written question I focused on something else: corporate personhood. But that debacle is going to be the subject for my next blog. In the meantime, however, controversy regarding the voter ID bill would rule the day.
Mario Scavello stood up and with a straight face said that in Pennsylvania there are people who drive loaded buses around on election day, show up at precincts, and hand out slips of paper to people with their "name" for that polling place and who to vote for, causing massive amounts of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. The moderator, Crom bless her from high on his mountain, asked him if that was the case where is the documented evidence. He said he doesn't know if there's any documentation that proves it happens, he just knows it does. Now, I don't consider myself an overly cynical individual, and I can disagree with people without impugning their character (as I did in my last blog), but I couldn't help but wonder if he was so sure that was going on but no one had documented proof of it that it may be one method responsible for him being reelected so many times.
The other classic joke of the night came when one audience question asked of Mario whether he knew what a voter needed to bring to the polls to vote for the first time. He said he did and referenced bringing a bill with your name on it, which is part of it, but his failure to flesh out the rest of the details proves to me he was lying. He has no idea what a voter needs to vote for the first time in our state because he doesn't care. He's trying to make it harder for people to vote without even knowing how hard it might be already. Of course, he can't come out and say that, so he smiles and lies.
This naturally led to the topic of whether getting a photo ID was truly free if you need documentation to get it that costs money. One audience member stood up and said it would cost him $25 to get a copy of his birth certificate. At that point, I shouted "Poll Tax!" and the room erupted, some mumbling in protest to the suggestion, others repeating the term "poll tax" in phrases of understanding that what we're really talking about is bringing back Jim Crow for people of low socioeconomic status.
The moderator also mentioned that although there are practically no documented cases of voter fraud that the voter ID bill would potentially fix, there are other cases of voter fraud that are more common that deal with voting machines and other issues. She asked if there was any legislation being considered that would deal with those issues, since they actually were issues, unlike what the voter ID bill addresses. Both Rosemary and Mario took a long time to say, "No."
Now, if voter fraud was really one's main concern, why in one's right mind would one focus so much attention and scarce money on a form of it that literally almost never happens, while completely ignoring forms of voter fraud that are more rampant? The answer is simple: the motivation is not to ensure the integrity of the voting process, but rather to suppress the voting rights of citizens who are less likely to vote for them.