UPDATE: Ohio's stalled voter ID law- vote on Tuesday 10/4

UPDATE: The OH Senate will consider this bill on Tues., 10/4

In March the Ohio House passed HB 159, which introduced reasonable reforms to secure Ohio's election process, one of which was to require a photo ID in order to vote in person. Parts of the bill were passed into law in June. However,  the GOP-controlled senate and Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, balked at the photo ID requirement and it's been held up in the senate ever since.  It is finally scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, 9/27 as Sub. HB 159.

After the Republicans took over the House, the Senate, every statewide office and the Governor's office in 2010 and enacted bold reforms, the Senate Republicans have had the wind knocked out of their sails by the Democrats' ballot measure aimed at repealing Gov. Kasich's union reforms and their threat to do the same with election reforms and the new redistricting map.  They don't seem to have the stomach for another fight and, ignoring those who swept them into office, it's likely they'll take a pass on the photo-ID requirement. Senate President Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) has said he expects the photo-ID provision to be removed from the bill.

Currently, Ohio law allows a voter to cast a ballot if they are in possession of anything from a driver's licence to a cable TV bill. There is no way for the poll worker to prove that the person in possession of the cable TV bill is actually the registered voter.  Sec. of State Husted can't imagine a scenario where someone would try to game this system:

"I believe that if you have a government-issued check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no one made that up. They didn’t call AEP and establish utilities in their name to commit voter fraud."

To his credit, Husted has backed reforms in early and absentee voting, which will curb some of the abuses we saw in 2008. But his stubborn refusal to support the common-sense photo ID bill is baffling.  Here's what the new law would require:

When an elector appears in a polling place to vote, the elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the elector's full name and current address and provide proof of the elector's identity in the form of a photo identification or a non-photo state identification.

(2) If an elector does not have or is unable to provide to the precinct election officials any of the forms of identification required under division (A)(1) of this section, the elector may cast a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code and do either of the following:

(a) Appear at the office of the board of elections not later than the close of the polls on the day of the election and provide the identification required under division (A)(1) of this section; or

(b) Write the elector's social security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number on the provisional ballot envelope, which number shall be verified by the board of elections with the bureau of motor vehicles.

 It's not complicated. If a registered voter shows up without photo ID, he will still be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if he writes his social security number, driver's license number, or state ID number on the provisional ballot.

Note that no photo ID is required to vote absentee and anyone can vote absentee in Ohio for any reason.  

I have spent the past two Monday evenings at my county Board of Elections, training to be a poll worker and a Presiding Judge for the upcoming election. Doing so has giving me an insider's view of the Ohio voting process. These people run a very tight ship. There is redundancy built into nearly every step of the election process to assure there is no cheating or fraud.  Here are a few examples:

• There is a locked metal transfer case that contains supplies to be used in each precinct on election day. The Presiding Judge is instructed to break the lock on the case in the presence of other poll workers and check off the supplies on the "chain of custody sheet." 
• When setting up the voting machines (which have two locks and only one key for each lock) a Democrat and a Republican must be present and participate in the set-up. 
• If there is a problem with a voting machine a Democrat and a Republican poll worker will assist in resolving problems with the machines.
• There is a plastic lock on the voting machines that must be cut in the presence of a Democrat and Republican poll worker.
• If a ballot needs to be canceled on the electronic voting machine both a Democrat and a Republican poll worker must cancel the ballot together. 
• When a voter arrives to cast a ballot, their name must be checked against the list of registered voters in the precinct. If their name does not appear on the list they must cast a provisional ballot and provide proof to the Board of Elections that they are eligible to vote. 
• When returning the supplies (including the memory cards from the voting machines) to the Board of Elections on election night, a member of the opposite party must ride with the Presiding Judge to the Board of Elections. 

As you can see, there are layers and layers of security, oversight, and redundancy in place to assure voters that Ohio's elections are fair and secure. 

Except when it comes to voter identification. Showing a utility bill does not prove that the person attempting to vote is who they say they are. It just proves that they are in possession of the bill or bank statement. That is not proof of identity. It's not difficult to imagine dozens of ways people could fraudulently vote in Ohio as the law currently stands.  Say your grandmother doesn't feel like heading out in the bad weather on election day. Another family member could just take a utility bill and vote for grandma. It would be quite easy for family members to trade places. 

More troubling would be someone with access to large quantities of utility bills who decided to cross-reference those with voter registration rolls.  Has it ever happened? We have no way of knowing. Detractors of this bill say that there is no evidence that there is a problem with voter fraud in Ohio (well, except for this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this).

But lack of evidence of only evidence that there is a lack of evidence. We do know that there is a gaping hole in the security and credibility our our voting process in Ohio.  We have no way to know who is voting unless legislators pass a photo ID requirement. 

Republicans should not fall prey to the hysterical protestations of the Democrats crying foul and threatening another tiresome referendum. Nearly everyone who votes in Ohio already has a photo ID. The leftist Advancement Project estimates that 887,000 Ohioans don't have the ID's, but the number of registered voters without ID's who actually show up on election day is likely far lower (see my blog post on this issue). 

And for those who actually don't have a photo ID and who do actually vote, the legislation says that the state will provide a free photo ID for anyone who does not have one. 

I'd like to point out that the requirements to apply for food stamps in Ohio are far more burdensome. The applicant must show up at the local County Jobs and Family Services office and provide:

• Proof of citizenship, or an alien registration card
• Proof of all income
• Social Security Card
• Birth Certificate
• Proof of housing (rent/mortgage) costs
• Proof of utility costs
• Proof of medical costs if aged 60 or older, or if disabled
• Proof of disability (if applicable)
• Proof of child support (if applicable)

If you are in Ohio, call Senate President Tom Niehaus and your state senators on Tuesday and tell them we need a photo ID requirement to assure our elections are secure and credible. Please share this on your social networks and remind them who elected them and who will support them in their next election. The Democrats collecting signatures and draining their war chests sure aren't going to vote for them. 

Crosspost: Redstate

Mitt Romney on Abortion

Here's Mitt Romney on abortion in 2002 in a gubernatorial debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien:

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws and with regards to this issue of age of consent it is currently 18-years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that, one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or justice and get that permission. And so far, in Massachusetts history when a young woman has gone to a judge, not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining or current law which is the age of consent remaining at 18 and I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." 

Romney vehemently denied that he had accepted the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life in his 1994 senate race against Ted Kennedy. According to Romney, the group endorsed him without his knowledge and he would not own that endorsement (though O'Brien claimed his campaign spokesperson confirmed the endorsement). She quoted Ted Kennedy who said of Romney,

"He's not pro-choice, he's not anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

Toward the end to the debate his opponent, who was accusing him of not being pro-choice enough, while Romney kept insisting he was the every bit as pro-choice as she was, finally said, 

"You don't have a record, it's one of waffling." 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Romney proves he is a masterful and convincing debater. He uses the same bullying and avoidance techniques he used against Rick Perry in the recent GOP debates. I'm certainly convinced that in this debate he's pro-abortion and would "defend a woman's right to choose." After all, the 2002 gubernatorial election was riding on it. 


Of course, Romney has since changed his position on abortion and will now just as convincingly argue for the pro-life position and any other conservative position that will win him this election. Again, he's a masterful debater. 


But that's what's troubling. With so many "waffles" and flip-flops on major policy issues - major conservative policy issues - how do we know when Romney is debating for sport to win an election and when he is debating out of heartfelt conviction? If we're seeing the former in these debates and this is merely a contest to be won, on election day Zorro will drop his mask and we'll find out if we get Romney 1.0, Romney 2.0, or some morph of the two. I fear it will be something really bad like that new Coke. (If you're under 30 you'll have to click on the link you understand the dated cultural reference.) Beware the backlash. 

National Debt Road Trip

How do the Obama deficits compare with past presidents? And how did the national debt get so big anyway. This video tries to answer those questions by looking at the debt as a road trip and seeing how fast different administrations have been traveling.

Buckle your seat belt! I don't think this would even be allowed on the Autobahn.

Sherrod Brown's wife quits Plain Dealer after covering Josh Mandel campaign even

Today the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced  the resignation of Connie Schultz, wife of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).  Schultz had come under fire recently for attending a Tea Party rally near Cleveland at which her husband's likely opponent in 2012, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, was a featured speaker.  Schultz was spotted videotaping Mandel's speech, but she conspicuously neglected to mention in her article that Mandel was even at the rally. (Read the details in my previous diary).

Once news about Schultz's covert-op became known, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist and 18-year veteran of the Plain Dealer issued a  breathless apology, claiming that she never thought for a minute she was doing anything wrong and just "felt sick about it" and had learned her lesson.

Of course, the real issue was whether or not she was engaging in campaign activities at the behest of or on the tab of the Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio.  If so, this would be this would be too obvious even for the mainstream media.  They still like to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
And so we have Ms. Schultz's resignation:

"In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I'm no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband's senate race on a daily basis. It's time for me to move on."

This begs a couple questions:

1.  It took four years into her husband's term to realize she is not an unbiased columnist when her husband is a sitting senator? 
2. Has this still not become "painfully clear" to the executives and editorial board of the Plain Dealer? Why did they let this go on for four years?

I would also like to know who else on the Plain Dealer staff is conducting campaign activities while being paid by the Plain Dealer.  If they are conducting research for campaigns while they are preforming their duties as reporters/columnists/etc., it needs to be listed as "in kind" donations on campaign finance reports. Perhaps Secretary of State Jon Husted should start asking some questions and poking around in Sherrod Brown's campaign finance reports.


UPDATE: The Plain Dealer added some commentary to Schultz's resignation letter at 3:32 PM:

"Schultz had written for the newspaper for nearly 18 years. She is married to Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who will seek re-election to the U.S. Senate next year. Conservatives have criticized Schultz and The Plain Dealer, saying that she used her column to support her husband's political career.
Both Schultz and the leadership of the newspaper have maintained that her words are her own, and pointed out that she began writing about workers' rights and other liberal causes long before she married Brown in 2004.
Schultz took a leave of absence in 2006 when Brown first ran for the Senate."

Her editor, Debra Adams Simmons added:

"Her steadfast commitment to social and economic justice, her advocacy on behalf of women and her courageous efforts to speak truth to power highlight a distinguished career. Although Connie is moving on, hers will continue to be an important voice for the region."

Note how many liberal buzz words and phrases the editor from the Plain Dealer managed to pack into one sentence: "social and economic justice," "advocacy on behalf of women," and "speak truth to power."

Tells you all you need to know about the editorial perspective of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Is Perry's DREAM Act more awful than Romneycare?

At this point it's becoming clearer that it's a two-person race. Whatever "forces" control this process are shoving Perry and Romney to the top of the pack and barring any major upsets, we will choose between the two of them.

The professional pundits and establishment Republicans are telling us the important question is which candidate can attract Independents and conservative Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). That strategy failed miserably in 2008 and we have even less reason to believe it will work in 2012.

Among other things, those of us who care about what a candidate believes and how he would actually govern the country must consider the important question of whether we hate Perry's version of the DREAM Act more than we hate Romney's version of Obamacare.

First, I have to give props (or "propes" if you say it with a Texan accent) to Gov. Perry for not backing down from his policy and his convictions on immigration. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he's a straight shooter who does not waffle.

Contrast this to Gov. Romney's ever evolving excuses for his MA healthcare plan. He's loved it, he's hated it. It was a good idea gone bad when the legislature got its hands on it. It's a state's rights issue. Pick a day, pick an excuse. But don't worry, he's going to repeal Obamacare. Or for sure, he's going to give states waivers.

Clearly, Perry's policy to grant in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens is extremely unpopular with the Tea Party and with the conservative base. Although hardly the equivalent of full-blown amnesty, many see it as the nose of the camel under the amnesty tent.

That said, it's worth remembering that our revered President Reagan signed an amnesty bill, which granted amnesty to 3 million an unknown number of illegal aliens in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It was far more radical than anything Perry has done or has proposed.

Both Romney's Romneycare plan and Perry's cracking the door to amnesty are state programs. Neither has proposed imposing these on the entire nation. But they do give us insights into their governing style and moral philosophies which are important indicators.

In Massachusetts, every resident of the state was forced to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. In Texas, taxpayers were forced to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. On my personal liberty scale, I'd feel more violated by the Romneycare. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

As a Christian and a conservative, I confess that I am personally conflicted about the immigration issue. I understand the arguments. I know we mustsecure the border as the first order of business. I know that we must enforce E-verify and let's have a robust guest worker program with tamper-proof ID's.

But the fact remains that we have millions of people here illegally. They're not going to just disappear once the border is secure. Something is going to have to be done with them. Republicans and conservatives just sound silly when we give the trite answer that they can just go home and try again later. We all know that is not going to happen.

I don't have a problem sending home adult men and women who have broken our laws to come to this country. But in my soul, I wrestle with how to act justly toward the children of those lawbreakers. They did not cross the border illegally. They just had the misfortune of being born to a criminal and I can't seem to justify punishing them for the sins of their parents.

Not the stock Tea Party/conservative answer, I know. But I suspect there are many others who wrestle with this issue and are also conflicted. It's not a settled matter in their hearts.

For me, and for others who have endeavored to come to terms with this, Perry's defense of in-state tuition for children born to illegal aliens doesn't seem excessively far off the conservative reservation. I don't hate the idea as much as I hate the idea of Romneycare.

And lets be honest. Politically, pragmatically, having a slightly softer position toward the children born to illegal aliens may appeal to minorities, Independents and those enigmatic "conservative" Democrats. It does allow Perry to steal an arrow from Romney's centrist quiver.

Perry isn't my candidate yet, but his position on in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens is not a deal-breaker for me.

On the other hand, Romneycare is one of several serious deal-breaker issues Romney has dragged with him into this race. I would vote for him in a race against Obama, but he's not someone I could enthusiastically support or campaign for.

crosspost

Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

The most triumphant 9/11 tribute - courtesy of the NFL

Sunday was a filled with many appropriately solemn and somber tributes to those who perished on that horrific sunny morning ten years ago. I was moved to tears watching some of the wives and children of those who died in the World Trade Center read the names of their loved ones and I was even touched by President Clinton’s speech at the Flight 93 Memorial dedication on Saturday.

These were all very sad and serious moments as they ought to have been. Families are still grieving and many will never fully recover from the traumatic events of that day.

But as I was watching the Fox News coverage of the memorial events, they cut to Soldier Field in Chicago where the Bears were preparing to play the Atlanta Falcons.

A giant American flag was unfurled by a group of first responders to cover the entire field as the crowd cheered enthusiastically and chanted “U.S.A!” The roar only increased when players from both teams walked onto the field and helped to hold the flag up.

Then the crowd grew silent. Suddenly, the silence was shattered as tenor Jim Cornelison’s voice exploded with the opening notes of The Star Spangled Banner. Cornelison sang it the way it was meant to be sung – forcefully, defiantly, triumphantly. He left it all on the field, as they say.

The crowd continued to cheer throughout the song. Apparently, that is a tradition at Chicago sporting events when Cornelison is singing. I’m not a fan of disrespecting the flag (hats off guys!). I’m even downright offended when our Team USA Olympians can’t manage to mouth the words to the National Anthem when they’re on the medals podium. So I confess, I was a little uncomfortable with the protocol violation exhibited by the roaring crowd.

But my heart was in my throat when Cornelison hit the final note of the song. Somehow, this was needed on this day. We needed to show the world that the United States of America was displaying American pride and reveling in the triumph over terror and fear. And still playing football.

We needed this on 9/11/2011. It was a fitting end to an emotional weekend of memorial services and somber tributes.

The NFL's 9/11 Remembrance

Crosspost