5/30/2007, 4:58 p.m. EDT
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Adopting a mail-in voting system could improve Pennsylvania's anemic voter turnout, the chairwoman of the House State Government Committee said Wednesday.
Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, said she will summon witnesses for hearings on the subject in the coming months.
"It's a long-term project," Josephs said. "I don't expect we're going to have universal mail-in voting at the end of this session, and I don't have any time frame for it except that I want it to happen and I want to start the conversation."
About half the states, including Pennsylvania, do not allow no-excuse absentee voting. Here, the state constitution allows absentee votes by people serving in the military, those who will be out of town or have a religious conflict on election day, those who are too ill or disabled to go to a polling place and people who must vote ahead of time because of election duties.
Oregon, which began voting by mail in statewide elections in 1993, boasted the nation's third-highest turnout during the 2004 presidential race, according to a Census Bureau report issued two months ago. Only Minnesota and Wisconsin, which allow voters to register on election day, had higher rates.
"Everybody always says, 'We're going to change the type of voting in order to improve turnout,'" said Doug Lewis with the Elections Center in Houston. "So far, vote-by-mail's the only one that's actually done that."
Other "convenience voting" methods that states have adopted or considered are early voting — which allows voters to cast ballots before election day — and voting centers, where people can vote anywhere in a county, not just at their home precinct.
Pennsylvania's voter turnout for presidential races is about the national average. It has for several decades hovered in or near the low 50s as a percentage of voting-age population, according to a Franklin & Marshall College study.
Gov. Ed Rendell's Election Reform Task Force in 2005 recommended against a system such as Oregon's. It concluded the mail-in system could not be adopted without extensive study and noted the communal value of traditional voting.
The task force, however, said Pennsylvania's absentee voting rules are too restrictive and should be relaxed.
www.pennlive.com
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Repeal the Second Amendment
This is how the other side feels about our constitution, pretty scary.
The best way to reduce the odds of another blood bath like the one at Virginia Tech is to amend the Constitution and abolish the right to bear arms.
By Walter Shapiro
Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
Even Pollyanna on Prozac would acknowledge the daunting odds against repeal. Steering an anti-gun constitutional amendment through, say, the Montana or Missouri legislatures (approval of three-quarters of the states is required for ratification) would be a task on par with cleaning the Augean stables. But the benefits of separating gun owners from their extraordinary constitutional protections should not be ignored. Without the Second Amendment, firearms could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous devices, from coal-mine elevators to single-engine planes. While there is no way to guarantee that another Cho Seung-Hui would be deprived of access to a Glock, hitting the delete button on the Second Amendment surely would lower the odds against future mayhem.
www.right2beararms.org
The best way to reduce the odds of another blood bath like the one at Virginia Tech is to amend the Constitution and abolish the right to bear arms.
By Walter Shapiro
Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
Even Pollyanna on Prozac would acknowledge the daunting odds against repeal. Steering an anti-gun constitutional amendment through, say, the Montana or Missouri legislatures (approval of three-quarters of the states is required for ratification) would be a task on par with cleaning the Augean stables. But the benefits of separating gun owners from their extraordinary constitutional protections should not be ignored. Without the Second Amendment, firearms could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous devices, from coal-mine elevators to single-engine planes. While there is no way to guarantee that another Cho Seung-Hui would be deprived of access to a Glock, hitting the delete button on the Second Amendment surely would lower the odds against future mayhem.
www.right2beararms.org
Saturday, May 26, 2007
US House Likely to Vote on Paper Trails Next Week
May 25th, 2007
It is likely that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on HR 811 during the last three days of May. This is Congressman Rush Holt’s bill to ban vote-counting machines that produce no paper trail. Congressman Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) recently introduced a somewhat similar bill, HR 2360, to counteract HR 811. HR 811 would take effect before the November 2008 election, but HR 2360 would put off implementation until 2010.
Also, on May 25, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Christopher Dodd introduced S1487, which also outlaws machines with no paper trail starting in 2010. It is co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Patrick Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Dan Inouye, Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders.
No Comments »
New Voting Machines Helped Write-in Candidates in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
May 25th, 2007
Pennsylvania held primary elections on May 15, 2007, for statewide judicial office, and local partisan office. Luzerne County was using electronic vote-counting machines for the first time. Previously the county had used old-fashioned mechanical voting machines.
At the May 15 primary, 32 candidates won enough write-ins to be considered nominees of either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Luzerne County elections officials said the large number of write-ins was due to the fact that it is so much easier for voters to cast write-ins with the new machines, compared to the old machines. The new machines have an electronic keyboard which not only makes it obvious how to do a write-in, but eliminates the problems of poor penmanship.
The most important office for which voters nominated a write-in candidate was Luzerne County District Attorney. Republican write-in candidate Jackie Carroll needed 250 write-ins to be considered nominated, and received 455 write-ins.
www.ballot-access.org
It is likely that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on HR 811 during the last three days of May. This is Congressman Rush Holt’s bill to ban vote-counting machines that produce no paper trail. Congressman Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) recently introduced a somewhat similar bill, HR 2360, to counteract HR 811. HR 811 would take effect before the November 2008 election, but HR 2360 would put off implementation until 2010.
Also, on May 25, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Christopher Dodd introduced S1487, which also outlaws machines with no paper trail starting in 2010. It is co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Patrick Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Dan Inouye, Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders.
No Comments »
New Voting Machines Helped Write-in Candidates in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
May 25th, 2007
Pennsylvania held primary elections on May 15, 2007, for statewide judicial office, and local partisan office. Luzerne County was using electronic vote-counting machines for the first time. Previously the county had used old-fashioned mechanical voting machines.
At the May 15 primary, 32 candidates won enough write-ins to be considered nominees of either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Luzerne County elections officials said the large number of write-ins was due to the fact that it is so much easier for voters to cast write-ins with the new machines, compared to the old machines. The new machines have an electronic keyboard which not only makes it obvious how to do a write-in, but eliminates the problems of poor penmanship.
The most important office for which voters nominated a write-in candidate was Luzerne County District Attorney. Republican write-in candidate Jackie Carroll needed 250 write-ins to be considered nominated, and received 455 write-ins.
www.ballot-access.org
Thursday, May 24, 2007
CPPA Chairman Hagan Smith speaks at anti-illegal alien rally
June 3rd - CPPA Chairman Hagan Smith, Ezola Foster, Hazleton Mayor Louis J. Barletta and many more will be speaking at the Anti Illegal Alien Rally in Hazleton, PA at 2:00 pm. This rally is in support of Hazleton's Mayor Louis J. Barletta and his ordinances to rid his town of Illegal Aliens. Event is at the Hazelton city hall.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul
May 22, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.
“The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along,” said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race.”
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him “the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital” and recognized that:
Ron Paul’s voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.
“Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate,” continued Snyder. “Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president.”
www.RonPaul2008.com
ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.
“The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along,” said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race.”
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him “the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital” and recognized that:
Ron Paul’s voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.
“Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate,” continued Snyder. “Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president.”
www.RonPaul2008.com
Court Rules Against Allegheny County Smoking Ban
(AP) PITTSBURGH A state appeals court says that Allegheny County had no authority to enact a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, and ordered a lower court to issue a permanent injunction stopping the ban from taking effect.
Commonwealth Court ruled today in a case brought against the county by two restaurants challenging the ban, which originally took effect January 2nd for indoor workplaces. But an Allegheny County judge later delayed the implementation of the law in bars and restaurants.
The owners of the Smithfield Cafe and Mitchell's Restaurant argued that the state's 1988 Clean Indoor Air Act pre-empts the county and Chief Executive Dan Onorato from passing a law restricting indoor smoking.
They also claimed the ban would cause irreparable harm to their businesses and contains unfair loopholes for small bars.
www.kdka.com
Commonwealth Court ruled today in a case brought against the county by two restaurants challenging the ban, which originally took effect January 2nd for indoor workplaces. But an Allegheny County judge later delayed the implementation of the law in bars and restaurants.
The owners of the Smithfield Cafe and Mitchell's Restaurant argued that the state's 1988 Clean Indoor Air Act pre-empts the county and Chief Executive Dan Onorato from passing a law restricting indoor smoking.
They also claimed the ban would cause irreparable harm to their businesses and contains unfair loopholes for small bars.
www.kdka.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)