Chairman Election Board: Independent Voters Were Disenfranchised

This Herald-Standard article title, 96 disputed ballots rejected
May 26, 2010 04:20 AM By: STEVE FERRIS Herald Standard is such an inaccurate one we have been stumped to know where to start to refute it.

We wonder why the title wasn't reflective of the reality of what happened on Election Day in Pennsylvania in a North Union Townshipe precinct after a Fayette County Judge of Elections handed out two special election ballots to Primary registered Democrat and Republican voters (one of the ballots was intended only for Independent registered voters and contained only the Special Election face off between three candidates vying for deceased U.S. Rep. John Murtha's vacated seat).

It was only the independent registered voters who legitimately cast the paper ballot they were to use in the special election for John Murtha's vacated Congressional seat who were "disenfranchised."

The Republican and Democrat voters who voted on two separate paper ballots for the same vacated seat of John Murtha were NOT DISENFRANCHISED. The votes they cast using the Primary ballot which contained the block for the 'special election' were counted and tallied.

Some background before we give out the title the Herald-Standard should have used to report the outcome of the Fayette Election Board's decision regarding North Union Township District 4 and the "snafu" which in the end resulted in the disenfranchisement of three independent voters.

The Special Election was claimed to be held within time contraints for doing so by PA Governor Edward Rendell to fill the vacated term of office of deceased U.S. Rep. John Murtha (U.S. District 12). Gov. Rendell decided to have the Special Election for the unexpired term to be held within the already designated PA Primary Election, Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

The county of Fayette utilizes a dual voting system having gone first with Hart InterCivic's Direct Recording Electronic voting machines known as eSlates back in 2006 and later in 2008 adopting as an alternative voting system the hand-marked paper ballot voting system known as Hart InterCivic's eScan.

For the special election (John Murtha's vacated seat), Fayette voters in the 12th U.S. Congressional District had a choice of either the eSlate or the eScan paper ballot.

The DRE ballot contained the Primary candidates for other contests and the special election. Obviously, the paper ballot for Primary voters (registered Democrats and Republicans) contained the Primary candidates for other contests and the three candidates for the special election. Nominees of the Republican and Democrat parties, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

Meanwhile, other Party registered or independent voters are blocked from voting in the Primary for Republicans and Democrat candidates in Pennsylvania, known as a 'closed Primary,' but are enabled to exercise their voting rights in the special election.

According to a PA Independent election-day article, 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County by Eric Berne, the circumstances in North Union precinct 4 were early on laid out as being a mistake on the part of a Fayette precinct Judge of Elections who described briefly what happened over several hours before she realized Primary (registered Democrats and Republicans) paper ballot voters in the special election should not have been given two separate ballots...

...Amber Lilley, judge of elections at the North Union Township fourth precinct, said she mistakenly thought she was supposed to give out two ballots to each individual in her precinct during today's election because the election served as both a primary election and a special election to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the death of John Murtha.

"There were paper ballots, and there were ballots just for the independent voters for the special election, and my understanding, which was mistaken, was that those were special ballots for the special election," she said.

Ms. Lilley said she eventually realized her mistake, but by then 178 people had already voted. Of that total, 120 were Republicans, 55 were Democrats, and three were Independents.

Because of her mistake, the 175 Republicans and Democrats were able to vote twice, once on their full ballot that included the primary and special election, and once on the special election ballot that was supposed to be used only for independent voters.

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

Ms. Lilley said she was elected to the position of election supervisor in November and was not even aware she had won the election until February. Though she took responsibility for the mix-up, she said her training consisted of little more than watching some videos and basic directions from the state Election Commission.

Ms. Lilley is registered as a Democrat, but a Republican poll watcher was also present at the location throughout the day. Ms. Lilley said the poll watcher also misunderstood the directions on the ballot...

See 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

We followed subsequent articles in the ensuing few days and noted the discrepancy of reported voters and voted paper ballots under scrutiny.

Our posting can be found at Vote PA Message No 4679

With the election count finalized came news for the contest under dispute the Election Board chose to retain the special election paper ballot votes cast by Primary registered Democrats and Republicans as cast on the "Primary" paper ballot, and to reject all of the paper ballot votes cast by both Primary registered Democrats and Republicans and those of non-Primary voters or Independent registered voters.

We posed questions about the Election Board Meeting that was reported called to order ON Election Eve, Tuesday May 18, 2010 at about 9 PM in our former Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting, posted May 20, 2010. Sadly, to date, none of the questions have been answered.

So while we welcome the honesty when it comes around from our elected officials, right, we have to wonder why the reality of who was disenfranchised was not headlined.

Vincent Zapotosky, chairman of the election board and county commissioners, said the three non-party voters, who were given the correct ballot, were disenfranchised and Lilley apologized to them.

"I want to apologize to the three Independents who didn't get counted. I want them to vote," Lilley said...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/26/96-disputed-ballots-rejected.html

We suggest the more realistic headline:

"3 Independent Voters were Disenfranchised, Election Board Chairman Admits."

We also believe the situation should have been handled far differently.

All of the Primary voters should have equally been disenfranchised. If it's "OK" to disenfranchise three individual voters who were registered independent (so the registered Democrats and Republicans who voted twice can have the ballot they should have used exclusively counted), then it should be OK to disenfranchise the same registered Democrats and Republicans who used two ballots and actually cast two votes in the same special election contest when only one vote was due to them.

One person, one vote. That's the basic tenet of what are supposed to be American-style elections.

But that didn't happen in North Union Township's 4th district/precinct polling place.

Registered Democrats and Republicans got to vote twice in the special election. These voters actually handed in two separate ballots with the same special election contest marked.

It's been reported some of the Democrats and Republicans left the second ballot blank. Well that's just wonderful, why didn't they apprise the Election Judge what was happening if they chose not to mark a second paper ballot?

Had the first such Democrat or Republican who was given a second 'special election' ballot refused and made an objection, and somebody called the election office, the serious mistake would have been caught before even one double vote was cast.

Shockingly from the first to the last voter during the time period when this went on, some six hours, that's nearly half of the voting day, not one paper ballot voter, not one observer, not one poll worker, not one other voter who may have seen more than one paper ballot go to a Primary voter raised any QUESTION whatsoever about what was going on???

The voters who voted twice should not have been later rewarded with enabling their votes to count in the special election.

We wonder why the Election Board members think it's ok to disenfranchise three indpendent registered voters smack them down in order to allow the Primary ballot for registered Republicans and Democrats to stand - fraud free...

Read it and sleep. That's apparantly what the community of Independent and Majority Party voters have done. Not one outcry that three Independent voters were disenfranchised, and that fact comes straight from the chairman of the board of Fayette County Commissioners and the Election Board!

Obviously, as the vote of Election Board members was "unanimous" all members are OK with the disenfranchisement of three voters so the registered Democrats and Republicans can have their choice counted.

We also wonder where are the voting integrity organizations and the Brennan Center and the like on anything related to this incident at one lone precinct?

Missing Inaction, it appears.

Net the Truth Online

96 disputed ballots rejected
May 26, 2010 04:20 AM By: STEVE FERRIS
Herald Standard

The Fayette County Election Board on Tuesday unanimously voted to reject 96 paper election ballots for the 12th Congressional District special election cast by voters in North Union Township's District 4 precinct due to an election judge's error.

After many people voted at the precinct polling place during the May 18 primary and special election, it was discovered that the election judge handed out separate paper ballots for the special election to 93 Democratic and Republican voters and three voters not affiliated with either party.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley handed out the non-party ballots with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to the 96 voters.

Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of the paper ballots to determine if those voters voted twice.

In the special election, Democrat Mark Critz defeated Republican Tim Burns and Libertarian Demo Agoris to serve the remaining term of the late Rep. John Murtha who died in February.

Critz, who used to work for Murtha, beat Burns by more than 10,000 votes in the district, which encompasses Greene County and parts of eight other counties, including Fayette County. Agoris finished a distant third.

Advertisement At Tuesday's board meeting, Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser said only the three non-party voters should have been given the special election ballot.

Citing no way to differentiate between the special election ballots cast by the three non-party voters and the 93 Republicans and Democrats, the board rejected all 96.

Vincent Zapotosky, chairman of the election board and county commissioners, said the three non-party voters, who were given the correct ballot, were disenfranchised and Lilley apologized to them.

"I want to apologize to the three Independents who didn't get counted. I want them to vote," Lilley said.

Election board member and county Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink said the board's decision will be forwarded to Vernon.

In other business, the board rejected 13 provisional ballots and accepted all or parts of 19 others.

In many of the rejected cases, Independent or non-affiliated voters incorrectly voted for Republican or Democratic candidates. In some cases, the voters were registered to vote in other counties and in one case the voter was registered in Ohio.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/26/96-disputed-ballots-rejected.html

Also see

Judge orders count of paper ballots after possible duplicate votes
May 19, 2010 01:32 AM By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District.

A hearing on the issue was called after it was discovered that Judge of Elections Amber Lilley had handed out duplicate paper ballots for the special election, according to Sheryl Heid, solicitor for the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The mistake was discovered and corrected after 178 people had voted at the North Union Township No. 4 polling place, and the machine was shut down after 223 people had voted. Because voters have the option of either using the e-Slate electronic voting machine or using a paper ballot that is scanned on the e-Scan machine, it was unknown exactly how many voters used paper ballots, and therefore could have overvoted, Heid said.

Heid explained that Lilley handed out two paper ballots to each of those voting at the polling place, which could have led to some people voting twice in the special election.

Advertisement The special election includes the Democratic candidate Mark Critz, the Republican candidate Tim Burns and the Libertarian candidate Demo Agoris. Heid said the Democratic and Republican ballots had the special election listed on them, and the other ballots that listed only the special election should have only gone to voters of other political parties. She said three people in other parties voted in the precinct, all by paper ballot.

Larry Blosser, head of the election bureau, said a count of the paper ballots could be made to determine how many people possibly voted twice for the special election.

Vernon ordered the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing Critz and attorney Gary Altman, representating Burns, to count the ballots and then report to court, when she would make a decision.

The count and decision were unavailable late Tuesday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/19/judge-orders-count-of-paper-ballots-after-possible-duplicate-votes.html

also see

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.

The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.

The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Advertisement

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.

Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.

"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."

Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.

The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.

The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.

Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.

Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

U.S. Rep. Clyburn: Election & Voting Machine Fraud Greene Win!

During a segment on MSNBC's Morning Joe, United States Rep. James Clyburn was asked pointblank what he believed may have been done in the Alvin Greene Democrat Party Primary election to cause such an overwhelming win of a virtual unknown.

Clyburn agreed with the wording of the questions, responding he believed somebody was involved in paying Greene to run in the election, and he agreed when asked if voting machines were tampered with.

Yes, he said, he didn't know if it was Democrats or Republicans, somebody paid Greene and voting machines were tampered with...

Apparently, though Rep. Clyburn didn't specify who he believes may have paid Greene to run on Morning Joe, Clyburn wants a probe of the win and has indicated his belief in a conspiracy involving three candidates for the Democratic Primary in S.C...

Clyburn Alleges Conspiracy to Plant Candidates...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn_alvin_greene_not_only_suspicious_candidate.php

Rep. James Clyburn Wants a Probe of Alvin Greene's Win in S.C. Primary

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/09/jobless-army-vet-pulls-upset-will-oppose-jim-demint-in-south-ca/

clyburn Wants Investigation ... Scheme involving 3 Democratic Primary candidates ...

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn-calls-alvin-greene-a-plant-hopes-for-investigation.php

Viewpoint challenges claims Greene a 'Republican' plant
...Um. Here's the thing. Very few people, beyond Greene, his family and his friends, knew who he was or that he was even in the race (a claim that you can make about Rawl himself). And the masses certainly didn't know that he was black. So the plant argument, at least the one that we are most familiar with in South Carolina politics, just doesn't apply. Greene's race is irrelevant.

Even more damning, the reasons for why a secretive Republican cabal would pay Greene to run against Rawl simply aren't there. Rawl posed no challenge to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. None. In 2010, the era of the Tea Party, DeMint is untouchable.

And not only did DeMint have near-universal adoration on his side when it comes to Republican Party members, he also had a war chest that was substantially larger than Rawl's: $3.5 million to a little bit under $200,000.

As I've said it before, Rawl was defeated by money and marketing. He didn't have the money to compete.

Ask yourself this: Do you remember seeing a Rawl campaign sign? Do you remember seeing Rawl on the nightly news? Do you remember seeing anybody ever covering his campaign?

Exactly.

Rawl was as much of an non-entity as Greene. And Greene just won the luck of the draw.

And for those of you, like U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, who are unable to believe that Greene won because of random luck, may I suggest you pick up a copy of The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives Is Wrong. Mathematics don't lie.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/HaireoftheDog/archives/2010/06/11/alvin-greene-race-and-plant-allegations-irrelevant

Net the Truth Online

Senator Schumer: People Want Government That Gives

United States Senator Charles Schumer, though speaking of his Democrat-base, gave us the reality of the difference between the current two-Party majority political philosophies, and that of our Founding Framers.

The Framers of the United States Constitution not only wanted a limited federal government, they wanted all matters not placed specifically in the domain of the federal government to be delegated to the states or to "the people."

Schumer obviously has not managed to grasp the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.

During a segment on Joe Scarborough's Country program, and without a response at all from Scarborough (a Republican), Schumer said:

"...Given a choice between a government doing something... and no government... people will choose a government doing something..."

Schumer added something along the lines of and people expect something from government, when they don't get it, they demand it... they want their share of the government... he then went on to attempt to bring in the Great Gulf Oil Spill and how the people want more regulation... more regulation is what the people want, Schumer said, and the Democrats are the clear choice for that.

Recent bill proposed by Sen. Schumer

http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=325405&

Scarborough, for his part, again, as we've observed any number of times, in no way rejected the notion people wanted a government that 'gives' them 'something' rather than stay out of the affairs of people for the most part. Only rarely should we see the federal government 'giving' and 'doing' much because the federal government's powers are few and limited.

Nope, not a word from Scarborough.

He didn't even challenge Schumer on how the people want more regulation.

The federal regulations concerning off-shore oil drilling were and are already in place. Regulatory agencies which oversee the implementation of the regs failed miserably in the case of the pre-disaster of the Big Oil Spill.

The transcript will be posted as soon as it becomes available.

Net the Truth Online

Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting

Posting at Vote PA message board highlights the kind of questions which must be asked anytime it is discovered that a potentially illegal meeting of an official board of county government may have been held in violation of the PA Sunshine Laws.

Net the Truth Online

Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4679

Asking the questions for input here in hopes someone can answer before the Fayette Election Board holds an announced and advertised meeting next week.

Was the Fayette Election Board 'emergency meeting' held Election eve (Tues. May 18, 2010) (at an unknown time but prior to 11 pm) to determine what to do after an election judge mistakenly handed out two ballots to Primary voters registered as Republican and Democrat (special election ballots intended for registered Independents in addition to Primary election ballots which included the special election contest) in violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law?

Who has the power to convene a meeting of the Election Board, without public notification, and who is able to attend the emergency meeting? And can an "investigation" be ordered within the emergency meeting that was unadvertised? And when did the "investigation" begin such as during the emergency meeting? Were any paper ballots reviewed during the emergency meeting?

It's unclear whether lawyers for all the candidates in the special election were informed of the situation that had occurred in the one local precinct and were invited to the unannounced emergency meeting and did or did not attend such an emergency meeting of the Election Board.

What action was taken after 1 PM regarding the eScan voting system upon notification of the situation by the precinct Election Judge?

Was the eScan decommissioned and/or reset or both? What happened to the memory card?

How is it possible 3 different news articles are at variance on the number of voters who may have voted twice in the special election contest? Are at variance on the number of duplicate paper ballots, etc.

And where are the accurate numbers for how many voters the eScan private voter count recorded as utilizing the eScan prior to the error of duplicate ballots being discovered?

Thank you for any help you can provide. Any recommendations on whether or not there are grounds to proceed would be appreciated.

PA Citizen Mom

Note: the following PA Independent article dated May 18, 2010 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County was available the eve of the Election (via grassrootspa link) and did not include mention that an emergency Fayette Election Board meeting had been held Tuesday ... unknown time... the article quotes the election board solictor who says a meeting of the Election Board will be held...

No announcement is made that an emergency meeting will be held Tuesday, Election Day. In addition, the PA Independent article entitled 175 People Voted Twice in Fayete County notes comment by the director of the Fayette Election Bureau regarding how the situation was handled after it was discovered:

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

Meanwhile, the Tribune Review article includes mention on Wed. May 19, 2010 in the topic sentence that Fayette County Commissioners and Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy Vernon convened an emergency meeting last night ...

The interesting thing is one of the 3 county commissioners was not a member of the election board as he was seeking a slot on the Dem. Party Committee... a local attorney had been appointed to serve on the Election Board for the time being. It is unclear then if the full election board met with the attorney or without, or whether two county commissioners and Judge Vernon convened the meeting.

The title of the Trib article is also notable: Duplicate Ballots Investigated

Meanwhile, in its article on the matter published May 19, 2010, the Herald Standard article includes mention of the meeting which was "called" wherein presumably, Judge Nancy Vernon"ordered a count of the of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District."

It is astonishing that 3 different articles over the course of a day issue far different numbers about how many people may have voted twice, or cast duplicate votes, or however the situation is worded.

Who issued the information to the three different news outlets and why is there a discrepancy of numbers from the very beginning and including follow-up articles published Thursday, May 20, 2010?

It would be too confusing to post the May 20 articles... so here are these...

PA Citizen Mom

175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County
Poll worker mistakenly gave voters two ballots
MAY 18, 2010 | by ERIC BOEHMA mistake at a polling place in Fayette County allowed 175 people to double-vote this morning in the special election for the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional district.

Amber Lilley, judge of elections at the North Union Township fourth precinct, said she mistakenly thought she was supposed to give out two ballots to each individual in her precinct during today's election because the election served as both a primary election and a special election to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the death of John Murtha.

"There were paper ballots, and there were ballots just for the independent voters for the special election, and my understanding, which was mistaken, was that those were special ballots for the special election," she said.

Ms. Lilley said she eventually realized her mistake, but by then 178 people had already voted. Of that total, 120 were Republicans, 55 were Democrats, and three were Independents.

Because of her mistake, the 175 Republicans and Democrats were able to vote twice, once on their full ballot that included the primary and special election, and once on the special election ballot that was supposed to be used only for independent voters.

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

Ms. Lilley said she was elected to the position of election supervisor in November and was not even aware she had won the election until February. Though she took responsibility for the mix-up, she said her training consisted of little more than watching some videos and basic directions from the state Election Commission.

Ms. Lilley is registered as a Democrat, but a Republican poll watcher was also present at the location throughout the day. Ms. Lilley said the poll watcher also misunderstood the directions on the ballot.

The special election in the 12th Congressional district is between Democrat Mark Critz, Republican Tim Burns, and Libertarian Demo Agoris.

Eric Boehm is a reporter for PA Independent. He can be reached at Eric@PAIndependent.com

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

Duplicate ballots investigated

By Rich Cholodofsky
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Fayette County commissioners and Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy Vernon convened an emergency meeting last night to decide how to handle possible duplicate ballots cast by voters in one Uniontown area precinct.

Elections officials said that voters using paper ballots early in the day at the North Union VFW were erroneously given two ballots to cast, a situation that may skew results in the special election between Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns to fill the remainder of the 12th Congressional District term of the late Rep. John Murtha.

Fayette County Elections Bureau solicitor Sheryl Heid said the elections board was still meeting at 11 p.m. and had not reached a decision about how the ballots would be counted.

As many as 223 voters may have cast duplicate ballots, Heid said

The voting error occurred when a first-time judge of elections erroneously passed out two sets of paper ballots to voters until about 1:15 p.m.

Fayette County voters have the option of casting votes on an electronic machine or on paper ballots. Heid said that Democrat and Republican voters were given primary ballots as well as a secondary paper ballot for the special election that was only to be passed out to independent voters who cannot participate in the primary.

Although those duplicate votes were scanned and tabulated, they were immediately removed from the tallies, Heid said.

"We've taken steps to isolate the votes," Heid said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_681829.html

Judge orders count of paper ballots after possible duplicate votes
May 19, 2010 01:32 AM

TEXT SIZE
By: AMY REVAK
Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District.

A hearing on the issue was called after it was discovered that Judge of Elections Amber Lilley had handed out duplicate paper ballots for the special election, according to Sheryl Heid, solicitor for the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The mistake was discovered and corrected after 178 people had voted at the North Union Township No. 4 polling place, and the machine was shut down after 223 people had voted. Because voters have the option of either using the e-Slate electronic voting machine or using a paper ballot that is scanned on the e-Scan machine, it was unknown exactly how many voters used paper ballots, and therefore could have overvoted, Heid said.

Heid explained that Lilley handed out two paper ballots to each of those voting at the polling place, which could have led to some people voting twice in the special election.

Advertisement

The special election includes the Democratic candidate Mark Critz, the Republican candidate Tim Burns and the Libertarian candidate Demo Agoris. Heid said the Democratic and Republican ballots had the special election listed on them, and the other ballots that listed only the special election should have only gone to voters of other political parties. She said three people in other parties voted in the precinct, all by paper ballot.

Larry Blosser, head of the election bureau, said a count of the paper ballots could be made to determine how many people possibly voted twice for the special election.

Vernon ordered the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing Critz and attorney Gary Altman, representating Burns, to count the ballots and then report to court, when she would make a decision.

The count and decision were unavailable late Tuesday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/19/judge-orders-count-of-paper-ballots-after-possible-duplicate-votes.html

Still astonishing and unexplained how different news reports can contain such a difference of how many voters used the eScan voting system in Fayette County in one local precinct where an election judge admittedly made an error and handed Primary voters registered as Republican or Democrat two ballots for the District 12 Special Election contest...

Also unclear: How were attorneys for candidates informed of the emergency meeting of the Election Board which was convened on Tuesday May 18, 2010 when the public was not informed so the public could attend? And is convening the emergency meeting without notification to the public a violation of the state's PA Sunshine Laws?

Herald-Standard May 20, 2010

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html


PA Citizen Mom

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM
TEXT SIZE 
By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.
The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.
Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.
During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.
Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.
The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.
Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.
Advertisement

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.
Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.
He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.
Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.
"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."
Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.
The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.
The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.
Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.
Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Notice the Tribune's lead sentence. When did Judge Nancy Vernon order the county election board to determine anything? Was it Tuesday May 18, 2010 during the emergency meeting of the Election Board (which was not announced publicly)?

Was the order verbally issued during the Tues. May 18, 2010 emergency meeting of the Election Board and then drawn up the next day?

What are the legalities of a hearing of the Election Board or meeting whichever is accurate as there is a discrepancy in the news reports occurring with only representatives of some candidates in the special election being present and not others? What are the legalities of same as above when the public is not apprised of the emergency meeting before the meeting occurs and within the specified requirements of the PA Sunshine Law, and etc.

Note the discrepancy in the two articles about this:

Tribune Review "...as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes. "

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html


Herald Standard "...it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Which is it. Did all Democrats and Republicans handed the duplicate form cast two votes, or not all Democrats and Republicans handed both ballots voted both ballots?

It's one or the other, isn't it? Why is the Fayette Election Board Chairman, Vincent Zapotosky stating something obviously at variance with what Board Solicitor Sheryl Heid states? Who is correct?

And note the discrepancies in the amount of Republican and Democrat voters

93 Republicans and Democrats

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Oops, not according to Solicitor Heid in the Tribune article - more than 93 ballots were handed out a combine 64 Democrats and 33 Republicans with 93 of the 97 being voted.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

Were any determinations made during the emergency meeting of the Election Board Tuesday May 18, 2010? Who was present?

PA Citizen Mom

Herald Standard

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Tribune Review

Election bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid said the mistake was discovered after a first-time judge of elections at the North Union VFW passed out Democratic, Republican and non-party paper ballots to 64 Democrats, 33 Republicans and three other voters registered as independent or with no party affiliation.


Heid said it appears that 93 non-party paper ballots were incorrectly cast, as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes.

Only the three non-party voters should have been given that particular ballot, as the general primary ballot included the special election.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

PA Citizen Mom

Report ordered on Fayette ballot mix-up

By Mary Pickels
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, May 20, 2010


Fayette County Judge Nancy Vernon on Wednesday ordered the county election board to determine the proper number of votes cast for candidates in the special election in the 12th Congressional District and to determine if some votes were duplicated with paper ballots.

The board must file a report on its final determination with the judge.

Vernon's order followed an emergency meeting convened after Tuesday's primary, after it was learned that more than 90 voters using paper ballots early in the day at one North Union precinct were erroneously given two ballots to cast in the special election among Democrat Mark Critz, Republican Tim Burns and Libertarian Demo Agoris to fill the remainder of the late John Murtha's term.

Burns conceded victory to Critz on Tuesday night.

Election bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid said the mistake was discovered after a first-time judge of elections at the North Union VFW passed out Democratic, Republican and non-party paper ballots to 64 Democrats, 33 Republicans and three other voters registered as independent or with no party affiliation.

Heid said it appears that 93 non-party paper ballots were incorrectly cast, as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes.

Only the three non-party voters should have been given that particular ballot, as the general primary ballot included the special election.

Fayette County voters have the option of casting votes on an electronic machine or on paper ballots.

After Tuesday's discovery, the e-Scan paper ballot and e-Slate electronic voting machines at that precinct were replaced and voting continued.

"We literally have all of those pieces of paper," Heid said yesterday.

The paper ballots were scanned and secured before being delivered by the sheriff's department to the election bureau, Heid said.

"The seal was broken only at the judge's order," Heid said. "We preserved the ballots to preserve the integrity of the election."

Possible duplicate votes have not yet been included in the final tallies, Heid said.

Paper votes cast by those individuals for all other open positions will be included in the final tally.

"Everything except for their vote for the 12th Congressional District," Heid said. "Those are the only votes that will not be added in at this point."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM

TEXT SIZE
By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.

The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.

The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.

Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.

"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."

Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.

The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.

The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.

Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.

Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

See Vote PA Message Board

Fayette Election Voter Count Different per Reports

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4680

More

To clarify, if the Dem and Rep votes were the same on both and accounted for, as
suggested, the 3 Indie votes could be determined. If they are the same as well,
let's say the Independent candidate is chosen, then it becomes known how 3
identifiable voters voted.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4684

Re: Fayette Election Voter Count Different per Reports


Thanks for your input, Joy. The privacy of individual voters cannot be
compromised though. so no method can be employed which could determine in any
way how 3 out of any number of votes were cast in an election.

In fact, that's why I'm puzzling over the discrepancy between what the Chairman
of the Election Board states as noted below, not to repeat, and what the
Solicitor of the Board allows, there were undervotes according to the Solicitor.

Only if there were undervoted ballots among the non-Party ballots could it never
be determined how any of the 3 Independents voted.

Because if all Republicans and Democrats who received both ballots, voted both
ballots, then a comparison as you suggest be made, could be made, and it might
be very possible if the 3 independents' votes could be segregated and all the
same, to determine how they voted.

Thanks though

PA Citizen Mom

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4683

The previous was a reply to poster at Vote PA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4681

Rudy: Privacy Must Stand Back to Ensure Safety

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giulliani on Fox 'n Friends this morning answered what would he do about the attempted, but failed, car bombing - the aftermath?

He's knowledgeable about this in his security business. First what is needed are more cameras placed strategically which the technology is there for heat seeking. He understands the concerns about privacy. But privacy issues must stand back to ensure safety.

Nobody asked him about the historical quote:

those who give up liberty... ah what was that now... those who give up freedom and liberty... ah what did we learn in school way back when we were taught all about our nation's founding and the United States Constitution, unlike today, Rudy. What did we learn by actually having to read the founding documents about giving up something what was it, what... freedom, liberty...

Nope, not a peep from Pouter, Hellison, and Bruin. Oh those aren't their names. How forgetful.

Tyranny is Tyranny Whether Federal or State Government Mandated

Author Sheldon Richman made us think again, as we have in the past like so many others, government creates or manufactures the problem, the crisis, then sooner or later, government comes around with the solution to the problem, the crisis, the solution that leads to another problem or crisis which...

the government needs to solve.

But beware. This scenario doesn't only apply to the Federal Government and its current fix of the health care system's problems and crisis. But to the State Government as well.

One need only look at the State of Massachusetts. Ah yes, when Governor Mitt Romney supported the government's role in health care insurance for his state's citizens.

Romney doesn't support the Federal Government mandate, but it's A OK with Romney that the state of Massachusetts imposed a mandate.

Health Care delivery in crisis in the state of Massachusetts so along comes the State to fix it by imposing a what? A mandate?

Exactly. And other states would like no less than to re-claim or claim Tenth Amendment States Rights to do the same. States want to deny the Federal Government an imposition of a mandate for individuals to purchase health care insurance from a private provider, but not deny themselves that power.

If this isn't the height of hypocrisy, what is?

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

But oops, look at that, in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, people is not even capitalized as is United States and as is States/States respectively.

We've been wondering when do the people, yes not even a capital P in people in the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment, reserved powers - kick in?

When do the people get to claim power not delegated to the United States and not delegated to the States respectively?

That's right, the people are not capitalized, and so what powers do the people really have reserved to them?

Shouldn't the people have been listed first in the Tenth Amendment?

Shouldn't the Tenth Amendment read:

The people retain all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, any powers not so delegated are reserved to the people.

It should have been written that way and then we wouldn't have any claim by Federal or State governments that they can mandate anything on any individual.

We're wondering when do the people stand up and fight for themselves as a legal body mentioned at least with a lower case people in the Constitution.

When do the people fight for themselves as individuals.

Individuals with a right to privacy, a right to self-protection via any means, a right to protect themselves from a Tyrannical Government whether Federal or State?

When do the people get to exercise any power to claim a power to form their own health care system and their own methodology of health care delivery without having to fill out any not a single government form that asks anything about the status of their health care insurance?

Another development to consider is the exemption provided in the Reconciliation Act applicable to members of one religious sect or another. While names are not mentioned in the bill, analysis shows the exempted may be individuals belonging to an Amish or Muslim sect.

When will individuals act to secure their own liberty from Federal and State intrusive government which doesn't give one thought to an individual's privacy unalienable privacy rights?

Net the Truth Online

The Goal Is Freedom | by Sheldon Richman
Wishful Thinking on Health Care

No one knows exactly what was passed.
Posted March 26, 2010

How an issue is framed is crucial to how it is decided. Advocates of the package of health insurance regulations, taxes, and mandates known as ObamaCare managed to frame the issue as “reform versus the status quo.” But to call the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan (OPR) “reform” is to beg the question by assuming precisely what needs to be proved: namely, that the legislative package would actually reform — that is, improve — the medical system. Therefore the debate should have been not whether reform is desirable – real reform (improvement) is always desirable — but whether OPR is really reform.

A better framing of the issue would have been: real reform versus the status quo on steroids, for in the end OPR is little more than what Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal calls a “doubling down on the system’s existing perversities.” For example, under OPR everyone will be forced to become a customer of the health insurance industry that the ruling political class just spent a year demonizing, and that industry will reap billions in taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, demand for medical services will be further insulated from true costs. That is already the source of so much of what’s wrong today.

Let’s look at the newly signed law from four perspectives: moral, fiscal, economic, and political...

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/wishful-thinking/

PA Election Flawed with Un-purged Deceased

Do we know for sure whether or not the state's database of voters, called the SURE system, will contain the names of deceased persons remaining on the local listing of voter registration rolls? Some 67 counties make up the state, each with its own voter registration list. Among those 67 counties how many have conducted any review of their voter registration list prior to the upcoming 2010 May Primary, and how many have followed procedures for voter removal of at the very least the names of the deceased?

If a county's voter rolls contain the names of just a handful of deceased who would be disqualified from voting, of course, one would think, and a few of the deceased names show up on nomination petititions of candidates prior to the cut-off date for challenging such petititions, isn't the upcoming election 'flawed' from the get-go?

In the majority of candidate nomination petitition filings, there has been no challenge filed by either citizen-voters or opposing candidates in the Primary.

It's interesting to find that a few such filings have been made, but these unfortunatley are more geared to removing the eligibility status of the candidate from being on the Primary ballot than on finding the inaccuracies of the county's voter registration list!

The voter registration list then becomes a mere political game and is never challenged for being inaccurate and potentially posing an avenue to voter fraud and election fraud if ballots are cast by absentee or at the polling place using the name of a deceased person remaining on the local/state listings.

List of challenges to nomination petitions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28526929/2010-Petition-Objections-Cases

Net the Truth Online

U.S. Supreme Court refuses Fairchance candidate's case
By The Tribune-Review
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of a failed candidate who alleges impersonators may have voted in place of dead voters in Fayette County.

In an decision posted Monday, the court denied Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr.'s petition to hear his case alleging voter fraud.

The court's refusal to hear the case marks the latest loss in a series of court battles the Fairchance man has waged since having run unsuccessfully for constable and district judge last year.

Pritchard took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in December upheld a lower court's dismissal of his lawsuit. Pritchard had sought emergency motions to stay the election results of the May primary and November general election.

Pritchard had alleged that Fayette County failed to purge voter registration lists, resulting in impersonators possibly voting in place of deceased voters.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_673140.html

Unprecedented Unconstitutional Mandate on Individuals

Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care billon the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/obama-sign-health-care-bill-law-republicans-challenge/story?id=10176898

Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War
David Horowitz FrontPage Magazine

...The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Last night’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle.

It is the beginning.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/22/obamacare-bill-a-declaration-of-war/

Main-Scheme Press Failed Americans

It's our opinion the so-called mainstream Press just turned itself into the Main-Scheme Press with how this health care 'reform' vote came to be done in a reconciliation bill vote.

2,400 pages. Where was it? Main-Scheme Press where was it? The final version was never online because Pennsylvania Ardmire said last week he did not have the actual reconciliation bill available to him before he was about to vote in a few days.

Where were the headlines proclaiming neither the Democratic White House or the Democratic Congress had kept the details to themselves.

The online newsworthy item to make it out to the public? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Congress would have to pass the bill before people knew what was in it... she continued because the bill was in a fog of misinformation.

Well how can there be any accurate information if the entirety of the bill isn't published and available online for interested reviewers? Let alone for legislators?

And what misinformation?

Double counting Medicare savings? To gain the revenue neutrality presented as Yes we can do this without breaking the budget?

Congress had just prior to this vote adopted a more expansive debt ceiling.

so that's not telling us anything, right?

Individuals will be mandated to purchase health care insurance?

Is that misinformation?

And where were the headlines the dasterdly insurance companies are not prevented in this bill from raising costs down the road?

Nowhere. But now the reconciliation bill, let's be clear what was passed - a reconciliation - has been passed - now Lawrence O'Donnell is OK with stating the insurance companies are not prevented from raising costs to the consumer.

The Main-Scheme Press should go down in history as the most inadequate in the history of our nation.

It's timefor something new.

All of us versus them.

Net the Truth Online

O"Donnell: Reform Vote Against Polling Majority of Public

Straight from Lawrence O'Donnell: the Health Care Vote by the House was a vote against the polling majority of the American Public. (Morning Joe, Monday, March 21, 2010. Quite an interview with O'Donnell. Get the transcript. The tax increases oh what tax increases, says O'Donnell. It depends on what and how you're looking at the bill (and the figures).

The majority of the American public polled against the bill? Who'd have known with the Main-Scheme Press.

That's right. A majority of us. That's right. Remember us. The owners of this country.

But headlines before today's rarely revealed much if anything that was in the bill. Why not? The bill wasn't available? It wasn't public, yet? Since when has that stopped the former american Press from getting the scoop?

Since they all started cavorting with the White House way back before President Obama at White House off-limits to the public parties, conferences, and galas.

Today headlines scream the ayes have it.

Yes. Yes. Yea. Yah = 219 of them.

Some reports say the reconciliation bill will be sent directly to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Others insert the Senate will have its say. The Senate Parliamentarian may have a say or rather advice as well.

Phyllis Schlafly says with this vote the myth of the Pro-Life Democrat is exposed.

In our opinion, that's not all that's been exposed.

Read President Barack Obama's message to us Yes We Can has been his message all along - his goal is yes we can - do whatever we want as a majority in Congress with the White House and Democratic majority.

What he won't say is how. And how is as important as it's done.

Obama's message - yes we can - to us and yes we did sign up to receive these long ago back before the Primary of 2008.

Read it, and read it again.

Net the Truth Online

Citizen --

For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.

Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:

Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.

And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.

But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.

It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.

It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.

And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.

This is what change looks like.

My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.

This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.

Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.

We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

PA Petition challenge withdrawn others remain

Candidates challenge opponents' petitions
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak draws criticism for contesting names on a rival's ballot in their U.S. Senate race.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
With the May 18 primary in Pennsylvania two months away, some can didates for U.S. Senate, governor, Congress and the state House got a taste of the competition Wednesday when their ballot petitions were contested.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/12688773078940.xml&coll=1

Listing of challenged and challengers to nomination petitions

via grassrootspa.com

Petition filed to remove Meehan from the primary election ballot
Published: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By PAUL LUCE
pluce@delcotimes.com

Patrick Meehan, the GOP candidate for the 7th Congressional District, should be tossed off the primary election ballot, according to a petition filed Tuesday in Commonwealth Court by four area Republicans.

The petition alleges Meehan’s nomination papers are riddled with fraud, resulting in less than the mandatory 1,000 valid signatures needed for him to remain viable.

Meehan, a former U.S. attorney and Delco District attorney who prosecuted voter fraud cases during his term in the Media Courthouse, called the allegations “a charade” from the campaign of his likely Democratic opponent, state Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-161 of Swarthmore.



http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/03/18/news/doc4ba19ae815fde759258706.txt

A petition challenge reportedly filed by a Dan Onorato supporter against Democratic gubernatorial rival Joe Hoeffel has been withdrawn, administrators with the Commonwealth Court said Wednesday.

A review of the petition-challenge list in the court’s Harrisburg offices showed Hoeffel’s nomination had been formally challenged Tuesday but removed a day later. The documents showed Hoeffel’s name had been crossed out.

Even if it had remained, the chances of knocking Hoeffel off the ballot appeared slim. The Montgomery County commissioner said he had filed 7,632 signatures from 33 counties – gubernatorial candidates need to file only 100 signatures from 10 counties and 2,000 total.

http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-challenge-to-hoeffels-nomination-petition-withdrawn/8287/

We were surprised anybody filed a challenge to the nomination petitions of any candidate seeking the nomination for Governor of PA. High stakes indeed.

Nomination petitions for Primary Election for Governor according to information require some specific regulations and requirements for gathering of signatures.

Among those requirements is a 10-county minimum requirement for the gathering of at least 100 of the 2,000 signatures needed to qualify for a spot on nomination ballot in the "Party" Primary.

In the case of candidate Hoeffel's nomination petitions, as reported, an even wider county base of signers was obtained - some 33 counties!

There are 67 counties in PA. so half the counties in PA at least some 7,632 names in 33 counties would have been highlighted by an opponent challenging the petitions for review.

we wonder if our county was included among the Hoeffel 33? don't you? And if you don't why not?

Granted, the process wouldn't have been easy. The Onorato supporter would have had to give specific reason for disqualification of a 'challenged' voter's status to sign the Democrat petition.

Not to besmirch the Hoeffel campaign, but including it among all other campaigns, especially those for Governor, it's likely in a 33-county spread, some signers are ineligible. And it's more than likely in a 67 county review.

Ineligible names remain on voter registration rolls across Pennsylvania, and in fact, it's a no brainer, across states in the United States.

Whether there would have been enough rejections of names on the nomination petititons of Hoeffel to have Hoeffel's name thrown off the Democratic Primary Ballot would have been answered after the process took place.

What would such a review of some 7,000 plus names from a 33-county voter registration database for PA have revealed?

We'll never know now.

How accurate is the state database?

How accurate are each of the voter registration rolls in the 33 counties?

The 67 PA counties?

Unanswered questions year after year.

And with that, who can really trust that the winner (gaining the most votes cast at the precinct and via absentee ballots) is the true winner? A winner in a Primary Election wherein unless there's a special election occuring at the same time, or a Constitutional amendment or a referendum question on the Primary Ballot, independents and Third Party registered voters are excluded from participation.

Such Party challenges to nomination petitions are not rare in PA, that's why the canard to challengers - you're trying to kick me off the ballot and do an end run around the voters - has historically been accepted as politically motivated.

And we find with this withdrawal and with others like it - the same can be said - stopping the challenge once begun on the basis of potentially ineligible or disqualified names on nomination petitions is as politically motivated.

Why not carry out the process and prove the ineligibility of names for whatever reason?

It might reveal some of the same names on the challenged petition are also on the challenger's petition?

The same potentially ineligible names?

It's also rare for anybody to challenge names of voters who've requested and returned absentee ballots, or the residency or eligibility status of voters showing up at the polls.

On behalf of voters in their district of election or appointment, Judges of Election are placed in a position of at the least sanctioning every voter's name who walks in the door and is noted as being on the county voter rolls.

Judges and pollworkers are required to compare signatures of voters at the time of entry and signing the precinct poll book.

How this can be accomplished with any degree of believability becomes another unanswered question when - and it happens - signatures are missing, illegible, or mere scrawls on the county voter registration signature card/digitalized image of a signature block.

Even county commissioners who are aware there are potential ineligibles on the voter listing (for being deceased, or having moved out of the jurisdiction, or signature missing in the county voter registration database) will not challenge a name on the voter registry or use their constitutional ability to review the voter registry.

A voter can also challenge the eligibility status of another registered voter, but this is rare as well.

Net the Truth Online

PoliticsPA: Challenge to Hoeffel’s nomination petition withdrawn
By Alex Roarty
PoliticsPA Staff Writer
roarty@politicspa.com

A petition challenge reportedly filed by a Dan Onorato supporter against Democratic gubernatorial rival Joe Hoeffel has been withdrawn, administrators with the Commonwealth Court said Wednesday.

A review of the petition-challenge list in the court’s Harrisburg offices showed Hoeffel’s nomination had been formally challenged Tuesday but removed a day later. The documents showed Hoeffel’s name had been crossed out.

Even if it had remained, the chances of knocking Hoeffel off the ballot appeared slim. The Montgomery County commissioner said he had filed 7,632 signatures from 33 counties – gubernatorial candidates need to file only 100 signatures from 10 counties and 2,000 total.

The Onorato campaign, in a statement, said one of its supporters was simply doing his due diligence to help the Allegheny County Executive’s run for governor.

“Every competent campaign checks their opponents’ petitions and challenges any questionable ones to defend itself,” said spokesman Brian Herman. “Based on the obvious motive and opportunity for one particular candidate to remove the only other candidate who shares his base, one of my supporters filed a legitimate challenge.


http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-challenge-to-hoeffels-nomination-petition-withdrawn/8287/

Should Republicans Stop Demon Pass? No. States should

We think not. Please let the meaneuver go through. We need this to go forward and we need the Democrats to be returned to Congress in overwhelming numbers.

We need 40 more years of the Democrats in the majority after they were in the minority about 12 years and only recently swept into the White House, Senate with for an all too brief time, a veto-proof majority, and in the House of Reps.

Stay out of the transformation of America, Republicans.

We need this shot in the arm to keep our addiction to Mommy/Daddy government going.

The states, that is another question. Should states Stop Demon Pass?

Yes, they can. And they should.

Every single one of them should file whatever nullification paperwork is necessary to deem this law null and void - it is unconstitutional for the federal government to order individuals to purchase anything no matter from whom or what entitity.

Net the Truth Online

Deficit Reduced CBO Says Demon Pass Arriving Next

Very soon, the Demon Pass meanuever will be used by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives to adopt a Health care Reform something a Bill, a reconciliation of the 'budget' between House and Senate. Yes we can.

Congressional Budget Office numbers' crunch is done and we are giddy over these numbers.

The health care reform legislation will cost 940 billion and be offset by as much making it budget neutral.

The reconciliation bill that may not be the one PA Rep. Ardmire said on Hannity Wednesday he hadn't seen what was in it, well it or something is up...

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

Obama Yes We Can Use Deem to Change Status Quo

Think about this. From the audience you face a President of the United States of America giving a speech.

Former President Barack Obama.

He says his Presidency technically started upon his swearing in January, 2009, but his Presidency really began the day the House of Representatives majority of Democrats used a particular parliamentarian procedure to pass Health Care reform.

Deeming, President Barack Obama claims announced to the world how he as President always believed would be the route to the kind of change necessary to transform America.

He tried to work with the opposing party, the Republicans, so too did Congressional leaders, House Speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid. But they were the Party of No.

He recalls the day the House of Representatives used the technique known as "Deeming" and he was always a supporter of this and any other techniques to get good bills passed when you face a reluctant opposing political party.

He recalls the people had their say after the Senate's acceptance of the reconciliation bill that resulted and as a result not only did Americans get the health care reform they clamored for, the Democratic Party was returned to the majority with a few more to spare.

The voters confirmed the process worked. And they are still confirming after the Democrats have used the Deem and Pass exclusively since and they - we - remain the majority party in the House of Representatives with a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

After the hour's worth of former President Barack Obama's speech, Mr. Obama took no questions from the audience since he needed to meet former First Lady Michele Obama at her campaign headquarters.

All he said was Stay with us, return us to the White House and vote Yes we can for Michele Obama for President of the United States.

Thank you Health be with you and God Bless America

The "Deem Team" In Your Face at the Doctor's Office

Poster PeteP at the Volokh Conspiracy comments on the article: Would Deem and Pass Survive Judicial Review?

PeteP says:
One thing is sure — it WILL be challenged in court, repeatedly. The AG of Virginia even sent Pelosi a letter today ( basically ) stating that he would challenge it.

So, the political question is — Do the Dems want to risk that ongoing headline for months and months ?

The Deem Team should be scared — very scared !

Another thing is for sure — anyone who’s not totally confused by all this hasn’t been paying attention :-)

Quote

March 17, 2010, 5:58 pm

http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

Clever. The Deem Team!

And we answer the question, Yes, the Dems will chance whatever headlines come about because the Democrats have one goal in mind with the majority power they hold now.

They have always wanted big government to take care of you.

And they will get this health care insurance 'reform' bill passed as law every which way they can.

And as Nancy Pelosi stated, then Americans, then, you will know what is in it.

Guess this isn't what's in it now, right?

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

Tonight, Wed. March 17, 2010, Congressman Altmire D-PA said on Hannity he did not have the final version of what is in the "reconciliation."

Obviously, if he doesn't have it, the link provided by the House Budget Library is not the final version of the Reconciliation bill.

Search results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&q=deem+and+pass+history&aq=3z&aqi=l1g-z3g7&aql=&oq=deem+&gs_rfai=

Net the Truth Online

Would “Deem & Pass” Survive Judicial Review?
Jonathan H. Adler • March 17, 2010 5:45 pm

Politico reports that quite a few constitutional experts, in addition to Stanford’s Michael McConnell and Yale’s Jack Balkin, believe the so-called “Slaughter Solution” (aka “Deem and Pass”) could present a thorny constitutional question. McConnell thinks it’s clearly unconstitutional; Balkin believes its constitutionality depends on its final form.


http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

Adam Sullivan says:
Confused: I’m a bit confused by this deem and pass discussion.Liberal blogs have noted that there will be a vote by the house, which is why we keep seeing articles every day on who in the house will vote which way.How is that vote being discussed not sufficient?I’m not saying it is.I’m just honestly confused by all of this.

It is that the “vote” is on a rule and not the bill itself. If you look up Pelosi quotes and Slaughter quotes from last week you will find that they explicitly crafted the rule to give wavering members of the house an excuse of “I voted for the rule and not the bill, and the Senate tricked me on reconciliation” to tell voters in November.

The rule is supposed to have a scheme wherein the Senate bill is passed conditionally on the Senate accepting the House terms on reconciliation via reconciliation. That way there is no debate in the Senate and they can pass it by simple majority and prevent filibuster.

We are all waiting on the particulars of the rule itself and what the reconciliation terms are.

Quote

March 17, 2010, 6:21 pm

http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

PA: Supervisors Decline Regional Police Want Sen. Ward Option

It couldn't be any more clear. South Union Township supervisors have rejected to consider combining with other municipalities to form a 'regional police force.'

Instead, the supervisors have put their support behind Pennsylvania state Senator Kim Ward's legislative proposal.

It could not be any more clear than that, despite what might be said about the supervisors of South Union township being free-loaders by not forming their own police force, or participating in a regional police force, the supervisors consider the PA state police system of providing protection locally with a few tweaks to the numbers provided and availability and training adequate for their small township.

It's their decision to make on behalf of their own constituents who elected them into office and can de-select them come the next election.

There's the local newspaper hosting a series of crime forums but without benefit of any viewpoint opposite of the viewpoint of favoring a 'regional police force' initiative as offered 'for conversation and discussion' by state Representative Timothy Mahoney (D-51st)

What is the benefit of hosting one of a series of forums to consider the possibilities of dealing with local crime when entitling the one forum "regional police force" and having all of the panelists in some measure being supportive of only the regional police force and by the way, not inviting such as state Senator Kim Ward onto the panel?

What an oversight, right?

Don't invite a sponsor of a key piece of legislation to the panel discussing state and local police forces and regionalization to talk about another approach which does not include regionalizing police forces.

an approach that has already been indicated to be among the primary consideration of South Union Township supervisors.

And potentially North Union Township supervisors.

and potentially other similar sized or even smaller municipalities.

But it is obvious from how the forum was billed from the get-go "regional police force" and the comments of state Representative Timothy Mahoney, that the only thing to be discussed was the regional police force.

and the initial state legislation proposed to slap an additional fee on communities without their own local police force or participating in a regional police force.

Mahoney said that the forum Thursday was an attempt to get people talking about regionalization as a means to provide better police coverage for Fayette County residents, noting that Fayette County now leads the state in unemployment rate, violent crime rate and poverty rate.

“For elected officials … I think it is time for us to take the blinders off and start looking around for how to change,” Mahoney said, adding that the current legislation at the state level would not suit the county’s needs and would end up costing the taxpayers more money without providing any additional state police coverage.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/26/regionalized-policing-discussed.html

Isn't it lying when other options are not even considered? Senator Kim Ward's bill for instance has been on the table for a couple of months before the forum, yet she isn't invited?

And isn't it with-holding information and thus also lying when one doesn't have a produced study which outlines in detail the so-called cost-savings of a regional police force versus a municipality choosing to opt into something along the lines of Sen. Kim Ward's legislation?

Sad.



Net the Truth Online

South Union supervisors ponder police protection options
March 03, 2010 01:54 AM TEXT SIZE By: REBEKAH SUNGALA
Herald Standard

South Union Township supervisors said Tuesday they are continuing to research all available options regarding police protection and said state legislators need to worry more about increasing state police and less about regional police.

Supervisor Robert Schiffbauer said he doesn't appreciate legislators claiming that local leaders aren't doing their job and said it's the people in Harrisburg who have failed to provide ample police protection.

"We have legislators accusing us of not doing our jobs. But we're accusing them of not doing their jobs in Harrisburg," he said.

Discussion regarding police coverage came to the forefront after legislators proposed House Bill 1500, which would force municipalities without local police departments to pay for state police coverage. The proposed legislation would cost South Union Township over $1 million a year.

The question of regional police came under fire after state Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Township, proposed forming a countywide regional police department in response to House Bill 1500.

At Tuesday's meeting, Schiffbauer held legislators to task for the state police shortage...

...Schiffbauer said the township supports a Senate Bill proposed by state Sen. Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland, that would allow municipalities to pay $90,000 a year to have a state trooper assigned to patrol the respective municipality.

The bill, according to Schiffbauer, would give municipalities an option if they feel they need more police coverage than the state police are currently offering and said the bill doesn't mandate the municipalities to pay for extra coverage.

Schiffbauer said the bill would help municipalities who can't afford to contract with the state police by freeing up troopers to patrol the areas without a contracted trooper on duty.

In addition, Schiffbauer spoke out against any legislation that would have troopers assigned to the state's casinos.

The legislation would have more than 150 troopers patrolling casinos, according to Schiffbauer.

"It's a shame we're going to have more state troopers in the casinos than we're going to have out on the streets," he said.

Schiffbauer said legislators need to be worried about public safety and police coverage, but that they should be worried about increasing state police protection and getting more troopers out on the roads and not concern themselves with pushing the idea of regional police.

Supervisors Chairman Thomas Frankhouser said forming a local or regional police department could actually decrease the number of state police assigned to the Uniontown area.

Frankhouser said the state police are the best and that township residents deserve to have the best available protection.

"In my opinion, there's no comparison," he said.

Supervisor Rick Vernon said the township cannot support any legislation that does not increase, and could potentially decrease, the number of state police for the area.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/march/03/south-union-supervisors-ponder-police-protection-options.html

While the majority of people attending a meeting to discuss regionalized policing agreed that Fayette County residents need to address police coverage and police needs, not everyone is willing or agreeable on how to fund it.

The forum, the second in a series of workshops designed to discuss topics related to crime in Fayette County by the Herald-Standard, in conjunction with Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus, was held Thursday evening at Penn State Fayette.

After opening remarks from panelists John D. Hartman, chief of the Southwest Regional Police Department; Dr. Lawrence N. Driscoll, a professor in the Administration of Justice Department at Penn State Fayette; and state Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., the trio fielded more than an hour of questions from about 60 residents and local municipal leaders gathered at the event.

According to Driscoll, there are basically five options facing the county in coming years for continued law enforcement, including contracting out services to neighboring police departments, supporting one of the three proposed bills in state legislature for taxation or charges for state police coverage, attempt to form regionalized police forces, create individual police forces or simply do nothing.

“It (regionalized policing) is extremely time consuming and it is extremely complex,” Driscoll said. “It is important to the area and, to be quite honest, probably overdue.”

Hartman, who is chief of the only regional police force in Fayette County, said that his department provides police services for five municipalities, including Belle Vernon, Newell, Long Branch inside Fayette County and Coal Center and Cokeburg in Washington County.

“This issue has been very contentious,” Hartman said. “It appears to me that people are in a pitched battle over this issue and I really don’t understand it. Police departments are not competing…we are there to serve and protect.”

Hartman said that his own department was created out of economic necessity and has grown over the last decade as municipal budgets have tightened.

Mahoney said that the forum Thursday was an attempt to get people talking about regionalization as a means to provide better police coverage for Fayette County residents, noting that Fayette County now leads the state in unemployment rate, violent crime rate and poverty rate...

...The forum Thursday was part of “CSI: Fayette County — Crime Subjects Investigated.”

CSI: Fayette County is a sequence of seminars throughout the year that will address crime in Fayette County in an effort to inform area residents about how to avoid becoming a victim, educate residents on their role in crime prevention and discuss topics relevant to crime and criminal activity in the county.

Future sessions are planned to cover a wide variety of crime-related subjects.

Panelists will include law enforcement officials, educators, newspaper representatives and other local experts on crime-related topics. Additionally, at each forum, organizers will try to include some type of interactive demonstration to help engage public interest, whether it is a training exhibition by a K-9 officer, a demonstration on the use of Taser guns or discussions on specific crime topics that include visual materials or interactive aids, etc.

The forums will be held throughout the year, averaging one every two months.



http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/26/regionalized-policing-discussed.html