In June, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Bill 934 (HB 934) almost entirely along party lines, sending it to the Senate for action. The bill requires valid state or federal photo ID from all Pennsylvanians at all elections before they are permitted to vote. HB 934 is an expensive voter suppression bill that would make it harder for older citizens, young adults, people with disabilities, racial minorities, and lower-income people to vote.

That’s why Marian Schneider, a local attorney, created a petition to The Pennsylvania State Senate, which says:

“Oppose House Bill 934 because it is unnecessary, it is a waste of taxpayer funds, and it will deprive citizens of their right to vote.”

The petition is sponsored by the Protect Our Vote Coalition, Advancement Project and PA Voice. They have over 17,000 signatures but are aiming for 20,000 – please sign the petition!

For more information, contact

Marian K. Schneider
Attorney-at-law
295 E. Swedesford Road, #348
Wayne, PA 19087
Tel. 610-644-1925
Fax. 610-722-0581

Karen Cruickshank, T/E School Board President, will explain the district’s budget issues in a presentation entitled “Success & Sustainability: A Plan for the T/E Community.” This 45 minute presentation will outline our district’s financial situation, including the fiscal pressures causing the projected $6.2 million deficit for 2012-2013 and the options under consideration to balance the budget. Hear it all on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 9:10 am at Hillside Elementary School in the Large Group Room

On, February 25, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected new maps for  House and Senate districts for this year’s election.   So for the time being, we’re back to being in Senator Andy Dinniman’s district and our House district will stay the same!

Read an Inquirer article with more details on the decision here.

Make your voice heard! If you oppose the proposed voter ID bill ( H.B. 934) as an attempt to disenfranchise voters, or an expensive and unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem,  then please contact your new state senator,  Ted Erickson (Republican, 26th District) here.

The state Senate is scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday, January 17, 2012. Along with a final vote on redistricting, the full Senate will vote on H.B. 934 with amendments.  The original bill required all voters to present a government issued photo ID at the polls. As amended by the Senate Government Committee, the bill adds nursing home, in-state college and some expired ID’s, which many believe does little to address the potential for voter suppression.
This bill has been characterized as “a solution looking for a problem”. Yet Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is now pressuring lawmakers to enact it into law ASAP – even as GOP lawmakers admit they lack proof of voter fraud.

According the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP), who oppose the bill, “we find no evidence – substantiated by a search of case records and anecdotal information from the counties that it is an issue“. Click here to read the entire statement, which was presented to the House State Government Committee.

The Pennsylvania League of Women Voters has also stated its opposition to H.B. 934. “Both unnecessary and costly, this legislation creates hurdles to voting that would disenfranchise thousands of our fellow citizens who are currently eligible to vote….Research shows they [photo ID requirements] encourage racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places, limit voter turnout and prevent eligible voters from participating in our democracy.  Photo ID requirements… do very little to combat the demonstrably rare instances of a voter impersonating someone else at the polls. Indeed there have been no prosecuted cases in Pennsylvania.” Read the entire statement here.

Senator Andy Dinniman made his opposition clear in an opinion piece in last week’s Daily Local.  He stated, “While I oppose the bill, I strongly believe in protecting the integrity of our voting system. The….facts show… since the 2004 elections, 20 million Pennsylvanians cast votes and not one voter was found to have impersonated someone else.“  Read his guest column here.  Note: Andy has served us well and faithfully since 2006, but as a result of the Republican state redistricting plan, Tredyffrin is no longer in his (19th) senatorial district.

Also concerned about the integrity of the voting process in Pennsylvania, local resident Margaret Van Naerssen wrote a thoughtful letter to the editor of Main Line Times last week. In it she offered a number of reasons why our state legislators should oppose the voter ID bill and protect eligible voters’ right to vote and the democratic process. You can read her letter here.

FYI:

The potential for disenfranchisement: The number of Pennsylvanians who don’t have government-issued photo ID’s is estimated to be 11% of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School.  A disproportionate number are African-American and Latino voters, senior citizens, people with disabilities, low-income voters, young voters, and foreign-born Americans.  Many lack documents such as birth certificates required to obtain a driver’s license or state ID.

Long lines on Election Day will further disenfranchise voters who cannot miss work or leave their families long enough to wait to vote. Because poll workers will need additional processing time for voter check-in, inevitably, some voters will leave without casting their ballots. Helping voters with provisional ballots and witnessing their signatures will cause significant delays, but there is no precedent for this in Pennsylvania. Further, the state’s provision for training and additional workers has not been included in H.B. 934.

Absence of Fraud: Nationally, the incidence of voter fraud is extremely rare. According to a 2005 study commissioned by the Justice Department under George W. Bush, there was just one conviction for voter impersonation out of  300 million votes from 2002-2004. The Brennan Center has estimated that 44 one millionths of one percent of votes are cast by people who commit voter fraud. It is statistically near zero and will have no effect on the outcome of an election.

The cost of implementing this bill: It is estimated to be $11 million in the first year alone, according to the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. Neither the state nor the counties have budgeted for this expense. According to the Pennsylvania’s LWV, “the cost to implement voter photo ID in Pennsylvania is still unknown.” The costs of additional training for poll workers, a statewide voter education system, new voter registration cards that include a photo, as well as the costs of legal challenges to the new law have not been fully considered. “At, a time when support for education, healthcare and other services are being slashed, it makes no sense for taxpayers to be forced to pay for this…”

Voter ID bills were introduced in 20 states in 2011. Nine state legislatures rejected them, but eight measures are pending, including bills in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. More information on voter ID laws can be found here.

Hate to say we told you so, but Tredyffrin’s all-Republican Board of Supervisors just raised your taxes again.  On Monday, December 19, after claiming to be committed to “holding the line on taxes,”  the all-Republican Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors voted to raise property taxes by 3.5%. Once again the GOP trumpets an anti-tax stance before the elections, then raises taxes right after – just take a look at the history of our tax increases below, which have all occurred despite Republican-dominance of the Board of Supervisors and T/E School Board. It is ironic, though, that the GOP tried to scare voters in November’s election by claiming that Democrats had a plan to increase taxes!

The table below shows what has happened under Republican domination of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors and the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board.  You tell us – which is the party that likes to raise taxes?

Read his Op-Ed, “Real reason for voter-ID plan,”  which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer Currents section on December 11, 2011.

Entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts

To the Editor:

In attacking the Nov. 16 opinion piece, “The Great EIT Hoax – Politics As Usual or Just Plain Wrong,” several Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee (TTRC) members showed they are in complete denial about their party’s conduct in the 2011 election. Mr. Broadhurst and his fellow partisans should remember the maxim that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Despite the fact that all Democratic candidates took a clear position against imposing an Earned Income Tax (EIT), the TTRC claimed: 1) the Democrats were behind the effort to study the issue and 2) studying the EIT is equivalent to voting for it. BOTH ARE FLAT WRONG.

Fact: The decision to study the impact of an EIT was brought to you by Republicans. The Republican-dominated School Board (6 Republicans, 3 Democrats) voted to impanel the Tax Study Group (TSG) in October 2010 when a Republican, Betsy Fadem, was president of the board. Republican Kevin Mahoney, the School Board’s Finance Chair, clearly stated that the board has a fiduciary duty to transparently present the financial condition of the school district. It is the board’s responsibility to lay out all options available to manage the upcoming budget imbalances.

Fact: In October 2010, on the matter of notifying the township that an EIT could be put on the ballot in May 2011, Democrats Karen Cruickshank and Kevin Buraks voted AGAINST moving the EIT to referendum, while Republican Kevin Mahoney voted in favor of it.

Fact: In November 2011, after hearing the report of the TSG, the school board again voted on whether to place an EIT on the ballot in April 2012. Again, Democrats Karen Cruickshank and Kevin Buraks voted against the EIT, while Republican Kevin Mahoney voted to retain the option.

Fiction: TTRC literature and the TTRC’s Nov. 23 opinion piece insisted that the Democratic candidates “needed a new revenue stream … to pay for massive new spending.”

Fact: There was no “plan” for any new spending. Our highest priority was a reduction in the pension liability expense, to minimize all the other program cuts that remain on the table. Our candidates’ positions were stated quite clearly on our Web sites, in our literature, our canvassing and our debate positions.

There’s no question that misinformation and fear worked in the TTRC’s favor. On Election Day there were numerous reports by election judges and poll workers of voters asking where the “tax question” was on the ballot. Many were senior citizens who would not be affected by an income-based tax but had been led to believe they would be.

The election is over. We remain deeply committed to maintaining the quality of our schools. We urge others disappointed with the TTRC’s tactics to join our efforts to promote real and honest discussion of the challenges facing our community.

ROBIN GREENE
Devon

CHARLES BENNETT

Berwyn

ALAN YOCKEY

Paoli

JEFF KOSTERICH

Wayne

Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee members

The quickest way out of the TTRC fog and into square facts is simply hearing actual comments from 2 Republican leaders on the T/E school board– past president Betsy Fadem and chair of the board’s finance committee, Kevin Mahoney.

There are 2 core claims by Mr. Broadhurst in justifying his tax hoax during the recent election campaign:

From the Broadhurst letter, claim #1:

“In this context, the T/E School Board, under the leadership of a president who was the acknowledged leader of the Democratic ticket, began ‘studying’ the imposition of an EIT to ‘educate’ the public on the subject. Everyone understood that this process could result in the imposition of an EIT. In the midst of an election campaign, that process included multiple public meetings and a special meeting of the School Board to vote on whether to call a referendum on an EIT. It is hard to understand how one studies a new tax and ‘educates’ the public on it but does not support its imposition.”

By “president who was the acknowledged leader of the Democratic ticket,” Broadhurst means school board president Karen Cruickshank, a Democrat on the ballot for re-election. The Broadhurst sentences mis-characterize the board study, ignore the timeline for a process that started much earlier than Mrs. Cruickshank’s term as president, and falsely ascribe her as the driving force behind the tax study.

In contrast with Broadhurst’s claim, here is Republican board member Betsy Fadem’s factual explanation of the timeline for the tax study. Her comments are from the November 3 public meeting. (Ninety second audio file, requiring 1 MB download.)

In contrast with the TTRC tax demagoguery, here is a statement by board finance chair Kevin Mahoney about the board fairly following its non-partisan “fiduciary responsibility” to all citizens in undertaking the study. (1 minute audio, also from Nov. 3, less than 1 MB download.)

From the Broadhurst letter, claim #2:

“At the same time and in the pages of this newspaper, the Democratic candidates claimed that the School District could handle no more cuts without being ‘irreparably damaged’ and that situation facing the School District left only options such as eliminating busing and increasing class sizes. The Democratic position ignored numerous possibilities such as outsourcing custodial services to save hundreds of thousands of dollars, raising revenues with temporary fees for activities, and gradually drawing down on the School District’s $25-million fund balance (‘rainy-day fund’) until the State Legislature addresses the pension issue facing every public-school system in Pennsylvania. At the same time, the leader of the Democratic ticket supported the EIT ‘study’ process and all but one Democratic candidate (Ms. Wessels) failed to take opportunities to say that they would vote to end the EIT process.”

While again incorrect, these sentences are not as brazenly false as the Republican’s authorized campaign literature, which insisted the Democratic candidates “needed a new revenue stream …to pay for massive new spending.”

Democratic school board candidates’ positions were stated quite clearly on their websites, in their literature, their door-to-door conversations and in their public debate statements. After 2 years of belt tightening, their highest priority was a reduction in the looming pension liability expense, while seeking to minimize adverse impact from the program cuts remaining on the table. There was certainly no “plan” for any new spending. Broadhurst and his associates willfully chose to state otherwise.

Again, let’s let Republican leaders on the school board counter their party leaders’ falsehoods.

Here is finance chair Kevin Mahoney describing 3 reasons for the district’s budget condition. (2.5 minute audio, 2 MB download.)

Here is board past president Betsy Fadem answering the question of whether an earned income tax would guarantee an end to program cuts for the school district. (1.5 minute audio, 1 MB download.)

Here is quick documentary proof that the statements used against TTDem school board candidates were not merely misleading, but outright fabrications—knowingly repeated in mailings and handouts from the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee.

First, some baseline information.

• To reiterate, there was no earned income tax question on the November ballot.
• There was no process underway to impose an earned income tax.
• The only hint of action about an earned income tax was a study by citizen volunteers, commissioned by the whole T/E school board, composed of 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and largely pushed by the chair of the board’s finance committee, Kevin Mahoney—himself a Republican.
• The study was fully informational—that is, it would provide facts and statistics and have no administrative impact.
• Four Democratic candidates running for the school board had all publicly stated opposition to an earned income tax.

Now, some deceptive highlights of the Great Earned Income Tax hoax, found in four excerpts from TTRC campaign literature.
Striking, and very calculated, is how the language used in the TTRC mailers grew more brazenly false with each card.  First and purposefully confusing is using the term “Democrat School Board Team,” which obscures whether we are indeed talking about candidates or whether there is some sinister team of Democrats already on the school board. At any rate, the cards first tell us the team “wants”—they want to “impose” a new tax. Then, another card, they want to “implement” an income tax. The Republican language next shifts to the team “has begun the process of creating a new tax.”

Finally, the last handout of their campaign indeed says the “Democrat School Board Team has begun the process of implementing a new income tax on top of the property taxes you already pay.”  Holy cow, it is already happening, voters! These Democrats are not even in office, but they are already implementing.

You will notice that the “new” tax is always described in the Republican literature, very broadly,  as a New Income Tax, which is of course a different order of being than an Earned Income Tax.  An EIT applies only to wages and net profit. It does not include retirement income, interest and dividend income, corporate income, unemployment compensation or social security income. Tredyffrin Republicans did not want voters to know that any earned income tax would only apply to 40% of Tredyffrin taxpayers–and a significant portion of that group are already paying an EIT if they work in municipalities other than Tredyffrin–most which accrues to those districts rather than Tredyffrin.  Keeping their language misleading, Tredyffrin Republicans wanted the other 60% of township voters, not potentially affected by an EIT, to be very scared nevertheless.

In addition to misleading language, the other TTRC trick is the old tried-and-true visual sleight of hand.  See those 2 stacks of money, representing current property tax and new income tax, in their literature.  They are big, equal-sized stacks, visually designed to lead uninformed voters to believe Democrats are about to double their taxes.

Deceptive language and visual tricks are not really laughable, because the false assertions succeeded in driving up voter turnout from 28 percent in 2009 to 37 percent this year. More participation in an election is generally a very positive development. But not when you are knowingly fostering misinformation and driving mistaken, confused voters to the polls. That is poisoning the well of democracy.

The Great Earned Income Tax Hoax: Politics As Usual, Or Just Plain Wrong?

Tredyffrin’s 2011 elections are over, and people I usually consider fair-minded are tarring both parties equally for nastiness. I totally disagree. As the chairperson of the Tredyffrin Democratic Party, I may be accused of “sour grapes,” but I readily concede the Republicans won all but two of the local races.

Pennsylvania has no law against deceptive practices in elections. It makes our elections like baseball games where there is no instant-replay rule. Remember the June 2010 game when a Detroit Tigers pitcher didn’t get his perfect game after an umpire wrongly called a Cleveland Indians runner safe at first? After the umpire saw the replay, he begged the baseball commissioner to reverse the call. But there was no reversal because there was no rule that the truth, as revealed in the replay, took precedence. It only takes one run or one vote to decide a game or an election, so I get that Democratic candidates lost under the prevailing rules.

What I can’t let pass is the cynical strategy executed by the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee (TTRC) and Tredyffrin Republican chairperson, Mike Broadhurst, of creating an entirely imaginary issue, knowing it untrue, but repeating it relentlessly. They have poisoned the well, going beyond the limits of decency in conjuring the Earned Income Tax (EIT) hoax.

If you were one of the people on Election Day asking where on the ballot you could vote against the Income Tax, you were the desired outcome of the TTRC’s dishonesty. There was no tax issue on the ballot in 2011. But produce a phony tax scare and voter turnout can be moved from 28 percent in 2009 to 37 percent in 2011.

Why does a string of such cynical untruths in a campaign matter? Cynicism breeds disengagement. If there was ever a time when this township needs to come together, that time is now. We need to work as a team to get Harrisburg to do the right thing for our children. The looming pension costs were placed on school districts by the Pennsylvania legislature, and that is where districts need to head for relief, which is what our Democratic candidates clearly stated. The Republican candidates’ solutions consisted of platitudes like “build on T/E School District’s outstanding reputation,” as if resting on our laurels will solve our fiscal crisis.

The Democratic candidates adamantly opposed any new taxes or spending and stated that repeatedly – in their literature and personal canvassing and at the League of Women Voters School Board debate on Oct. 25, where each Democratic candidate expressed clear opposition to the EIT. (Two of the four Republican candidates for School Board didn’t bother to show up and participate.) Current Democratic members of the School Board, Karen Cruickshank and Kevin Buraks, voted AGAINST moving the EIT to a referendum in a School Board vote.

Starting in October, Mr. Broadhurst and his TTRC team began placing yard signs saying, “No Earned Income Tax: Vote Republican.” An onslaught of October mailings contained an escalating series of specific and false statements:

• “Tredyffrin’s Democrat School Board team wants to implement an income tax… on top of the property taxes you already pay… They believe that more money is the answer, instead of spending what we have wisely.”
• “Vote “NO” to the Democrats’ Double-Tax! The Democrat School Board Team wants to impose a new Earned Income Tax on top of the property taxes you already pay.”

In the weekend before Election Day, the final straw was a Republican literature insert that said, “The Democrat School Board Team has begun the process of implementing a new income tax on top of the property taxes you already pay. The need it to pay for massive new spending…”

Presumably “School Board Team” refers to the Democratic candidates as if they are so powerful to have already begun “implementing” while not even in office. The actual School Board is composed of six Republicans and only three Democrats.

If Mr. Broadhurst and his partisans set aside their disdain for fact and looked at the report of the citizen-volunteer tax study group, they won’t find an ounce of opportunity for new spending. What the School District faces is a deluge of unsustainable pension obligations. Further, after over $10 million in cuts to our schools, we cannot get out of our crisis by spending what we have more wisely.

The Democratic candidates had solid credentials and useful experience. They signed up to run a campaign of issues, to provide creative solutions and to work as consensus-builders, not to joust against a cynical, knowingly false representation of reality. They had serious ideas for solving the problems facing the School District, without increasing taxes or spending. That didn’t matter one bit.

The Republican strategy worked for short-term gain, but at a cost to the fabric of the community. If not reversed by honorable Republicans, it will be the wave of elections to come. Some thoughtful Republicans expressed to the Democratic candidates that they were “outraged, horrified or appalled” at the literature pieces being sent out by the Tredyffrin Republican Committee. Clearly the TTRC has figured out that there is no FactCheck.org covering township elections and have chosen to exploit the absence of policing on the political highway. Moderate Republicans, who claim to want politics to “take the high road,” it is up to you to control your leaders.

Dariel Jamieson lives in Chesterbrook.