Demanding ID at the polls, perhaps illegally

My decades-long experiences as a voter in Philadelphia were mostly satisfactory, but my luck ran out on Nov. 8.

When I entered my center city polling place at 4 p.m., poll workers improperly demanded that I produce identification. The 2011 general election occasioned my third or fourth visit to this site. A registered voter is required to produce identification once after s/he moves to their new address.

I reminded them that lawmakers in Harrisburg were currently haggling over a proposal to require identification during each election, which means that they had no legal authority to demand this.

They told me that the judge of elections directed them to demand ID. They said that the judge can do this while the legislature is determining what to do in the future. I declined and they asked me to recite my address, which I did.

I informed them that I was going to phone the elections board. One poll worker responded that they would tell me what a great job they were doing.

This was at least the third time that I voted at this polling place since my polling place was relocated a few years ago.

A similar experience occurred last May. When I entered the polling place, a worker yelled at me to produce identification. At that time, I was not aware that identification was an issue, so I produced ID.

Both these experiences were bizarre and disturbing. I have to wonder where the commission finds these people. Whatever the merits of the proposed legislation, it is still not the law. In addition, I probably would have produced ID had they asked me for it as a courtesy. However, they had no right to make demands, even to have me recite my address.

I complained to anyone who I thought was responsible or had an interest in my concern - the Pennsylvania Department of State, state Rep. Babette Josephs and newly-elected City Commissioner Stephanie Singer, a Democrat who does not assume office until January. I reluctantly contacted the city commission office still run by departing Commissioner Marge Tartaglione.

A City Commission lawyer hooked me up with my Democratic committeeman, who immediately apologized and promised that this kind of conduct would not be repeated. He explained there was a miscommunication and described other unusual circumstances that contributed to this episode.

While his explanation begged more questions, I deeply appreciated his responsiveness.

I confess to not following the city commission election closely. I was aware that the commission under Tartaglione was heavily politicized. My attempts to learn more about the election process or research voter turnout and past election results were undermined by the agency’s website, if you can call it that. The website is essentially a blank slate that is utterly useless.

A few weeks after the election, I learned that my experience was nothing unusual after reading an Inquirer interview with Singer and Al Schmidt, the incoming commission members who will replace, respectively, Tartaglione and Joseph Duda. Schmidt is a Republican. (I, a3, 9/17/11)

In excerpts, Schmidt said, “The common denominators during the campaign really focused on transparency, making sure the office provides information to people when they need it…that it’s more efficient and more accountable to taxpayers and people who depend on it for service…They’re not transparent in how they spend taxpayer dollars…but more importantly, the information that people need to become engaged in the civic life of the city.”

Singer: “Part of it is simply making certain information is easily, publicly available, through the usual formats and also on a website. Budget detail and election results and things like that. And part of it is changing the culture of the office…making clear that we’re here to serve the public - the voters, the candidates, and the parties. And that our job is to make it easier for people…to be engaged.”

Schmidt: “The training of election board workers has been really very poor, and I think it shows in a lot of ways. I know it hurts our minority party and other minority parties…They’ve never seen a poll-watcher certificate before and they kick people out…It causes a lot of havoc on election day.”

Schmidt and Singer talk like serious people intent on serving the public to the best of their abilities. Under ideal circumstances, there would be nothing special about them. The Schmidt-Singer team should be the standard, not the exception.

Occupiers need to occupy GOP enclaves

‘We were sold out’

- Marchers in Philadelphia

‘I got rained on’

- Me

Occupy Wall Street espouses a noble cause, but I spent a few extra minutes in the rain on Friday, Oct. 14, 2011, standing on the sidewalk as 150 or so Occupy activists marched down JFK Blvd. east to City Hall.

The protests in Philly, downtown Manhattan and elsewhere leave me with mixed feelings. Most crucially, I was initially flustered because they were demonstrating in major cities where they preached to the converted.

I was relieved when they took their cause to the suburbs and the offices of Republican members of Congress. In the Philadelphia area, demonstrators crowded into U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick’s district office a few miles from a major mall in lower Bucks County on Oct. 12, 2011. Next day, 150 people occupied Doylestown, the seat of Bucks County, and protesters marched the two blocks from City Hall to U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey’s Philadelphia office.

A good start, but that effort must expand.

When occupiers moved their tents and other facilities onto Dilworth Plaza of City Hall, one member proclaimed that this was the center of “government.” Huh? Philadelphia is run by Democrats. While they are not perfect, Democrats in Congress along with President Obama have presented proposal after proposal to relieve the nation’s horrific economic conditions.

It was Republicans who principally brought us our $1.3 trillion in wars and billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich, and it is Republicans who hang tough together to shoot down Democrat-proposed remedies while GOP governors slash millions of dollars to urban centers.

So why bother the Democrats? True, Philly’s City Hall and downtown Manhattan are highly visible sites, but the protesters are pressuring those who are essentially on their side. While Mayor Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican and is now an independent, the vast majority of New York’s elected officials are Democrats.

Both Philly and NYC have already spent small fortunes for police coverage, and businesses in lower Manhattan have suffered.

The Occupy crews must transfer their energies to Republican enclaves. With the exception of locals, it would be difficult for many demonstrators to reach GOP enclaves. For instance, Rep. Nan Hayworth’s district offices are far up in the northern NYC suburbs where public transportation is minimal.

At the same time, Rep. Michael Grimm’s offices in Brooklyn and Staten Island should be relatively easy to reach. His SI office is located on New Dorp Lane. From the Wall Street area, take the ferry to Staten Island, transfer to the SI railroad (a glorified subway) and exit at the New Dorp Lane stop. Walk east a few blocks. His office is on your left.

Occupiers scored a victory on Oct. 21 when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Eric Cantor canceled a speech at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, explaining in a statement that his office “was informed last night by Capitol Police that the University of Pennsylvania was unable to ensure that the attendance policy previously agreed to could be met,” according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. (I, fp, 10/22/11)

The university in turn issued a statement: “The Wharton speaker series is typically open to the general public, and that is how the event with Majority Leader Cantor was billed. We very much regret if there was any misunderstanding with the majority leader’s office on the staging of his presentation.”

Cantor decided against traveling the 130 miles from Washington after news broke that occupiers would march to Wharton that afternoon. They claimed they planned no disruptions inside Huntsman Hall, where Cantor was to speak, but they certainly intended to demonstrate outside. In Cantor’s absence, hundreds of occupiers marched to Huntsman yelling slogans and brandishing signs.

If Occupy troops would regularly take their protests to the suburbs and the offices of Republican House and Senate members, think of the impact they could have. They already are affecting policy, however slight, but suburban protests would have an even greater effect.

Besides, let Republican taxpayers bankrupt their communities with excessive spending on police protection.

Looney Tunes, Supreme Court-style

'It’s a purifying of the court - trying to return it to where it should be’

- Marjorie Dannenfelser, right-wing advocate

Where? Back to slavery?

The Supreme Court has emerged as a hot issue among the Republican presidential contenders, a be-careful-what-you-wish-for move that they may regret.

By calling attention to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, they will remind voters that one of the president’s jobs is to nominate Supreme Court justices. Jimmy Carter won one disaffected citizen’s vote in 1980. This writer was ready to vote for independent John Anderson, even if his chances were slim, out of frustration with Carter’s presidential performance and aversion to Ronald Reagan’s policies.

Carter reminded flustered Democrats as to how Supreme Court justices get hired, and that was enough to convince me. President Obama can take advantage of this strategy in his re-election campaign.

Rick Perry happens to be right in urging term limits for Supreme Court justices in his book “Fed Up!” in which he writes in favor of proposals “to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power.”

Term limits of 10 to 15 years, 20 years tops, would limit the damage that an unfit judge might incur. Perry’s idea of a bad judge probably differs from mine. It is true that the most brilliant judges would likewise be term-limited, but even the likes of Brandeis and Marshall are not indispensable. If we lack sufficient legal talent to replace the current crop, then we are in deep trouble.

It stands to reason that Supreme Court justices should be at the top of their game when they are nominated, the product of extensive experience which affords a sturdy foundation for legal wisdom. They would be in their late fifties at the least and would remain well past the traditional retirement age.

Presidents from both major parties play games with term limits so they would spend decades on the court. Clarence Thomas was 43 when the first President Bush nominated him and Elena Kagan was 50 when President Obama sent her name to the Senate. Kindergarteners would probably have their careers set if presidents could get away with it.

Perry and other contenders zeroed in on social issues, as catalogued in a New York Times piece, such as the usual suspects - abortion, same-sex marriage and the role of religion in public life. That could help inspire the GOP base and win backing in the primaries.

Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which is described as a conservative legal advocacy group, told the Times, “There’s an even more dramatic overstep on the part of the courts now. With the grass-roots revolution on the ground and the Tea Party movement, there’s a desire for a return back to first principles.”

First principles? Does Dannenfelser and her friends read legitimate books about the Constitution? The Constitution legalized slavery even though the nation’s birth was triggered by the founders’ hunger for freedom. Delegates signed the Constitution because the Southern delegates demanded the continuation of slavery. It was the price for enacting the Constitution.

Does Dannenfelser miss slavery? As for “first principles,” whose first principles? The delegates fervently clashed over proportionate representation in Congress.

Except for term limits, Perry and friends present some befuddling ideas. He suggested that Congress should be authorized to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote. Newt Gingrich told the Values Voter Summit in October that “judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the American system of self-government.”

As the Times piece notes, Congress may just have the authority to limit cases. However, this means that two adjoining sections of the Constitution contradict one another. Section 1 of Article III states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2: The court “shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

How do we set limits? If limits are set, how does the court determine when those limits apply to a case? How else can a citizen seek justice?

Gingrich and Rick Santorum, a senator from Pennsylvania for 12 years, share the goal of eliminating or disrupting the operations of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, which hears cases from federal district courts in nine Western states. “That court is rogue,” said Santorum. “It’s a pox on the western part of our country.”

There are many Pennsylvanians who thought of Santorum, from the Pittsburgh area, as “a pox on the western part of our” state.

Misguided election reform

An operation dubbed Americans Elect has an intriguing idea - conduct a national primary election on the Internet to run a centrist candidate for president.

On the surface, it sounds like a useful process to bolster the democratic system. However, the organizers would be wise to spend their time, effort and money to benefit more realistic initiatives.

Doyle McManus, in an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, explained how it works: “Americans Elect…plans to put a centrist presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states…Americans Elect is a collection of Republicans, Democrats and independents who say they’re fed up with the polarization that has poisoned American politics.

“The group plans to hold a national primary election on the Internet - a mass-participation exercise that anyone can join,” he continues. “Candidates can nominate themselves and voters can form committees to ‘draft’ candidates, including politicians drawn from the major parties

“…The group is collecting signatures to put itself on every state’s ballot…Americans Elect says it plans to choose a presidential nominee (and a vice presidential candidate, who by the group’s rules can’t come from the same party) by June. What happens then depends mostly on the shape of the contest between the Democratic and Republican candidates.”

If history is a guide, we can safely predict that AE’s nominees will either make no practical difference or divert enough votes from one party to tip the election for the other party. We certainly cannot discount the possibility that the AE team will actually win.

A presidential election is a grandly ambitious starting point for installing independent or third-party candidates into elective office. Any political campaign takes an extensive amount of money and organization, and obviously a presidential election could be too much to manage.

McManus correctly points out that Americans Elect should start with running candidates for congressional posts.

At this time, every member of the House is a Democrat or Republican, and two senators are independents.

It would be practical to run independent candidates in swing House districts and for Senate seats in low-population states. The smaller scale of the district or the state will allow the candidate an easier opportunity to reach many voters, especially if most residents are clustered in metropolitan areas.

Most independents elected to the Senate or governor in recent years ran in small states, including Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island. Independents also won statewide office in Connecticut and Minnesota.

It would probably benefit the nation far more if Americans Elect joined forces with two other movements, one to effectively replace the electoral vote with the popular vote and another to level the playing field for independent candidates.

California lawmakers passed identical measures in 2006 and 2008 to join other states in turning over the electoral votes of all participating states to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarenegger vetoed it, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Current Gov. Jerry Brown signed an updated version last Aug. 8, making California the largest state to make this commitment. Brown’s signature raised the number of combined electoral votes to 132, from 77.

An organization called the National Popular Vote has been working with lawmakers in all 50 states since 2006. To succeed, states with a combined 270 electoral votes are needed, which is the majority that a presidential candidate must obtain to win the election.

Political reform organizations have been promoting a system called Instant Runoff Voting that allows the election of a candidate to receive the majority vote in a race with multiple rivals.

Under this system, roughly, a voter casts a ballot for his preferred candidate (Candidate A) and then votes for other candidates in order of preference. Let’s say his second preference is Candidate B.

The first result leaves no candidate with a majority, but Candidate C has the top spot with a plurality of 40 percent. The voter’s first preference, Candidate A, has 20 percent and Candidate B has 33 percent. His vote for A is transferred to B and, if most voters think this way then B will win with 53 percent of the vote.

Because Maine employs the winner-take-all system, its current governor can now follow through with his intent to tell the president to “go to hell.” Paul LePage, the Republican, was elected with 38 percent of the vote while his two closest opponents shared 56 percent.

“Three is a crowd in our current voting system,” reads a description posted by the Center for Voting and Democracy. “Plurality voting, in which the candidate with the most votes win, is dysfunctional when more than two candidates run.

“It promotes zero-sum politics that discourage new candidates, suppress new ideas and encourage negative campaigns rather than inclusive efforts to build consensus.”

The Center for Voting and Democracy further clarifies how IRV works: “IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates.

“First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot.

“The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.”

Instant Runoff Voting is currently employed to elect mayors and other officials in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Aspen, Colo., Takoma Park, Md., and London, England, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy.

Australians have elected its House of Representatives this way since 1949 and Ireland has elected its president since 1922 with IRV.

There is now a realistic chance for us to acquire the popular vote for president to level the playing field for independents. It would help if all reformers would join this effort.