Unchanged Melody
The song of one man, one vote is still number one on the GOP music chart, and it's singer is standing his ground.
Unchanged Melody
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
As state Republican House Leader Mike Turzai's name continues to spread across the political landscape, the controversy over voter ID and questions about its actual impact, one thing is clear: he is not changing his tune.
No matter what he was asked Wednesday during an impromptu press conference in the state Capitol newsroom, he stuck to the lyric of the law, saing it's about protecting the principle of "one man, one vote" and "the integrity of each and every valid vote."
He sang this chorus when asked if maybe he should not have offered (or differently phrased) his now-famous assertion that passing the law will "allow" Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania and that it was part of the GOP legislative agenda that can be labeled as "done."
He stuck to the refrain when asked, since there's no evidence of fraud offered in Pennsylvania or nationally, whether Republicans should have offered the law here and in other states as a natural, common-sense move in an ID-conscious country.
He could not be moved.
I wanted to ask if, since "the integrity of each and every" vote is the intent of the law, if he worries that its requirements put ANY, even one, valid vote at risk, but I knew his tune would not change, nor allow discordant notes.
Give him credit for staying on message, refusing to budge even as his name is knocked around.
He drew special mention in Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson's decision upholding the law. Simpson called Turzai's statement tying the law to Romney's chances of winning the state "disturbing" and "boastful."
Turzai also was named in Thursday's New York Times editorial on the ruling. The Times said he "was simply indiscreet; most Republicans know better than to speak the truth out loud."
But the truth can be elusive. It appears the truth in this case is no one, including the state, has any idea of the law's real impact on voters or on the Novemeber election.
It is unclear whether participation will be tamped down because some number of eligible voters will--by decision, circumstance or lack of information -- end up not complying with the law, or whether active efforts on behalf of partisan groups, civic organizations and the government lead to increased voting.
All that is clear on the day after the decision is that the law's principal promoter is offering an aria that's an unchanged melody.
Why should he change his tune? He knows there are enough scared and angry white men to back him up.— NorthPhillyTechie- Why can't minorities get ids?— bannedrepublican
- Obviously, we all should do our best to get ID's. But for a Commonwealth Court Judge to disregard one of the most overwhelming cases ever presented (The Commonwealth put on no evidence and conceded that there was no evidence of voter fraud), put the burden on the plaintiffs to justify their opposition (restrictions of constitutional rights place the burden on the Government to justify the restrictions with a rational basis for the law) and then completely disregard the evidence put on by the plaintiffs of the law's effect on the right to vote, it is clear that the decision was purely political. Indeed, all Simpson had to do was say, "Look, the law meets constitutional standards as long as the Commonwealth sets up iron clad guarantees that anyone can get an ID without cost" and thus simply delay implementation until such safeguards were established, and he would have been applauded by all sides. But when the MAJORITY LEADER of the Party that pushed this through states on the record that this will allow Romney to win, and Simpson bleets that this was just his own opinion, you know the fix was in. This decision was 70 pages of garbage, from a jurist I have been before and respected. It is time for lifetime tenure of Judges and appointment of Judges by bipartisan commissions. This was a disgrace.— Palestra Jon
- When this gets to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Chief Justice Castille will have the opportunity to lead the Court to a ground-breaking decision if the Court overturns this questionable decision. If he does, he will find his legacy to be one of honor, respect and independence. He has served his Country with singular commitment and he now can serve Pennsylvania's citizens so no one eligible to vote can be turned away for manufactured and political reasons.— lport
- Turzai's comment was stupid, but if the letter behind his last name was D instead of R, he would be the Inky's new Messiah.— FletcherT
- You should have gotten an id when Obama promised you a "Green Job", because you wouldnt have been able to accept if when it was given to you. Never mind that it was a false promise, you wouldnt be able to take any job if you dont have the right id.— tr88
- Maybe you need to communicate with Republican US Sen Grassley in Iowa regarding the explosion of Green Jobs in the Wind Mill Farm industry in Iowa, financed under the Obama Green Jobs and home grown energy initiatives. Apparently neither Romney nor Ryan spoke to him when they have consistently proposed to cut Federal subsidizes in their proposed budgets if elected. It has been reported that Grassley totally disagrees that green jobs with Romney and Ryan and opposes any cuts in the program. — ElecFact
- Baer, the Supreme Court, the same one that affirmed Obamacare, said that the ID law is legal. So live with it. Please stop the nonsense. Move on to another "Blame Republicans" theme. I'm sure you have plenty of that for the rest of your life.— hollandpa
- The issue isn't the ID, per se. It's the rapid implementation of the law which has been admitted to have the intent of political gain. How the Judge could overlook that admission by the Majority Leader of the Party that pushed this law through is ridiculous. If he gave time beyond this election, no one would complain. But to try and do in 6 months what has never been attempted before with no government agency able to do it is impossible. Let's admit what is before you--this was blatantly political and the Judicial decision was as well.— Palestra Jon
- Uh Jon- can you name any legislation that doesn't have 'intent of political gain'? Are you new around here? — Wiseman6
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
