Of course, it comes by way of a federal court.  The DC Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down the Texas Voter ID law today. 

The law was one of the strictest propositions this country has seen in recent efforts to tighten ID requirements. The State of Texas was not prepared to offset fees certified documents needed to get the new ID.  They offered no plan to mitigate the burdens faced by voters who would have to travel long distances to agencies providing the documents and ID's.

This lack of support, for registered voters forced to scramble to meet new ID requirements by November 6, was the downfall of the law.  The court found that Texas did not begin to meet its burden - per The Voting rights Act - to prove the new requirements would not prevent minority voters from casting their ballot.  It was the possibility of incurred costs that set the Texas law apart from the Pennsylvania law that is also in court. 

Opponents of the Pennsylvania ID may face a tougher challenge in court than Texas; the PA Dept. of State has provided for free birth certificates for those who need them.  But the roll-out in Pennsylvania is already underway, and voters have encountered one problem after another trying to get ID's.  Hopefully the weight of so many real-life examples of the barriers created will make the PA law unacceptable to the courts.

The other Voter ID law that is presently in court is the one in South Carolina.  I don't have as much information about that one yet, but I understand it is less strict than the Texas law, so it may survive trial.  More on that tomorrow.

Click here to read the Texas decision from today.

This is a status update on the situation unfolding in Pennsylvania regarding new voter ID requirements.  ID requirements there have been tightened to the strictest standards, effective on election day this November 6th.

The Pennsylvania Department of State announced this week it will provide a free "safety net" photo-ID card, for registered voters who are unable to obtain an official PennDOT photo ID. 

The nation watching may be excused for thinking this will enable many of the hundreds of thousands of voters without ID to vote in this election.  In fact, shortcomings in the system continue to create barriers, and it is still very possible that many registered voters will not be able to participate in this year's election. 

The safety net ID is intended to be a last recourse only, and a person seeking this ID must first take steps to obtain a regular PennDOT photo ID. 

To obtain a PennDOT ID, a registered voter must appear in person at a driver's license center and present a raised-seal birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two forms of proof of residence, such as a lease and a current utility bill. 

If the registered voter is not in possession of a raised-seal copy of the birth certificate, these steps must be taken:

• go in person to a PennDOT driver's license center; present a Social Security card and two proofs of residence
• sign an affirmation stating you do not have a birth certificate
• fill out a form requesting a non-driver's PennDOT ID
• fill out a form requesting certification of birth record
• return home and wait up to ten days for a letter from the health department
• return to the letter PennDOT driver's license center
• if the health department letter certifies your birth, you can get your PennDOT ID
• If the health department letter indicates the health department is unable to verify birth, then you can get a "safety net" ID.

Ellen Kaplan, Vice President and Policy Director at the Committee of Seventy, a non-partisan Philadelphia organization that works for fair elections, submitted inquiries to the Department of State as to whether there was a way a voter could obtain the safety net ID in one visit.  Answers were unclear, and even implied that this might depend depend on the judgement of the DOT employee the voter encounters the day of their visit.  Asked if a voter might be able to obtain a same-day ID, a DOS representative responded that voters were encouraged to bring "all the documentation they have with them," and the PennDOT clerk "will determine if the registered voter has all the necessary documentation" for the regular non-driver's PennDOT photo ID.  If the PennDOT clerk "determines that the customer does not have all the necessary documentation" and can't get it, the clerk will "begin the process of issuing" the safety net ID.  "Assuming the customer meets the requirements, a (safety net ID) will be issued and the customer will leave with the ID card."

This ID is intended to be a last resort "save" so that no registered voter will be blocked from voting this November.  But it can only act as a save if a registered voter without government-issued photo ID learns about the new requirements before election day and has enough time to obtain one.  It will only work if the voter understands this set of requirements for getting the ID, and has access to a driver's license center during business hours.  Rural voters, elderly voters, voters without transportation or time off work will be even less able to obtain ID.

If the new requirements prevented a single registered voter from casting a ballot in a presidential election, it would be an egregious injustice.  Unfortunately, even with wide disparities in estimates for how many voters will be affected, no one disputes that there are hundreds of thousands of registered Pennsylvania voters who do not possess government issued photo ID.  Also undisputed is the fact that this law disproportionately impacts minority voters. 

By virtue of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the law should be illegal. 

"No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

To be fair, Mitt Romney has to lie about President Obama's position on work requirements for welfare. 

The President supports work requirements for welfare.  And that position doesn't match the phony image of Obama that Romney wants to portray. 



This was an easy calculation for Romney campaign staffers.  A lie that confirms a prejudice is more powerful than evidence that exposes the lie.  This particular ad is widely repudiated by nonpartisan fact-checkers, but its unique characteristics blunt the force of its poor ratings: the ad is officially sanctioned by Mitt Romney himself.  It is one of the most expertly-produced campaign ads of the season.  And it is exquisitely designed for a crude, passionate response.

A saving grace for reality, though, is the simplicity of this ad's fraudulence, and the accessibility of the truth.  The original document in question, a July 12 memo from the Department of Health & Human Services, a memo in which Mitt Romney claims President Obama "quietly removed the work requirements from welfare," is right here.

The ready availability of the memo presents a rare opportunity for voters to be their own fact-checkers.  As you read it, hold these facts in mind: 

• Mitt Romney's ad states: "Obama gutted the welfare work requirement." 
  
• As you will see, Obama simply turned that question over to the states. 
  
• Mitt Romney's ad states: "I will restore the work requirements to welfare."
• As you will see, there is nothing to restore.  The requirements are in place.
• Mitt Romney, was one of the Republican governors requesting these waivers in May of 2005.  (Interestingly, the list also includes Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour.)

US citizens enjoy a high level of national security.  We've suffered domestic attacks only twice in over 70 years.  Two times too many maybe, but if you've always lived here, you can't really conceive of a lifetime lived in mortal terror.  This makes us extremely fortunate, but it seems that feeling safe can give way to bluster on the part of those vying for power, and panic on the part of their followers.  Let's be clear: we are in no more imminent danger of a nuclear attack by Iran than we were in by Iraq in 2003.  Iran's capability isn't there, and we will prevent it from getting there.  To do that without war, we have to do it with diplomacy.  And this is where the bluster comes in.

In matters of state, diplomatic doesn't mean "nice". 
When you draw on diplomacy with an office-mate, you tell them their unrealistic ideas are "ambitious".  When you draw on diplomacy as a national defense strategy, you use everything from visits to talks to warnings to sanctions.  And some of your tactics won't be "nice" at all.  Diplomacy refers to every measure taken up to the precipice of war, without declaring war.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum know this, but they gain more by characterizing the President's use of diplomacy as a dangerous hesitation.

In matters of state, sanctions aren't weakness or procrastination.
The sanctions imposed by the US and NATO on Iran are causing them catastrophic economic consequences and extreme isolation from the rest of the world.  In fact, this level of non-military penalty, with its impact on the health and safety of the civilian population, can only be condoned in hopes of preventing the greater tragedy of war.  In order to save countless lives in the long run, sanctions have to be survived somehow until they become intolerable to Khamenie and Ahmadinejad.  Iranian citizens would not question whether the current sanctions are stringent.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum know this too.  They know that Obama, with the EU, will continue to apply pressure until Iran comes in line.  But on the campaign trail they gain more by claiming that their own sanctions will be somehow tougher and more crippling, and that they will have an ability superior to that of the President to identify the crucial moment when the benefit of war outweighs the cost. 

In matters of state, negotiation doesn't mean appeasement. 
President Obama explained during his press conference Tuesday that in upcoming talks between Iran and the EU, Iran will have to meet concrete expectations.  They still have a window of opportunity to "rejoin the community of nations, " Obama said.  The ball will be in their court, and according to the President, "They know what to do.  This is not a mystery."  They can no longer simply claim to the world that they mean no harm.  Obama described the steps Iran must take as complex and methodical.  "I don't expect there to be a breakthrough in a first meeting.  They must send the signal that they are serious about resolving this issue," and take verifiable steps "to allow them to be in compliance with international norms, international mandates, and to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

The benefit to us of providing that window is that we can avoid war.  The risk is that Iran will be insincere, waste the time of the EU, and thwart progress in the non-proliferation effort.  The risk is not that they will fly back to Iran and launch missiles - they don't have them and won't get them.

Romney and Santorum also know this.  But (they are assuming) they gain more by speaking in the language that spooked our nation so intensely in 2002 and 2003 that we let our own government become the evil-doers. 

The stakes are high.
Circumstances call for Iran to show their hand.  But they don't call for Romney's suggestion that we send warships to the Mediterranean.  He's doing exactly what Condoleezza Rice was doing when she invoked the mushroom cloud.  When Santorum says the United States must give Iran a "clear ultimatum" to dismantle its nuclear facilities, and if they don't comply "we will tear them down ourselves," he is doing what Bush was doing by telling Hussein to "disarm or else."

Of course Iran must dismantle their nuclear facilities.  The US, working with the world community, will make them do so.  If we're going to use inflammatory rhetoric to discuss that fact, let's use it all the way around.  Let's ask questions like this:

• ​Would you rather Iran figure out how to save face and get this done, or would you rather have another round of shock and awe?
• Would you rather see a non-nuclear Iran result from diplomacy, or from blood, horror, and destruction?
• Would you rather imagine us two years from now maintaining a laborious truce with Iran, likely a sort of Cold War, or would you rather we lock things up now by slaughtering Iranian civilians and sacrificing the arms, legs, brain-function and lives of another contingent of our 19 and 20 year-olds? 
• Would you rather take the unease that comes with diplomacy, or the coffins that come with the warships?

Reality:
On July 12th, President Obama announced a plan to grant temporary waivers for welfare work requirements to governors who request them.  The waivers allow individual states to experiment with new approaches to welfare.  If state officials can prove that the limited program will improve their ability to get people on welfare back to work, they may be approved to use the program throughout their state.

Romney ad below:
On July 12th, President Obama announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping the work requirements.  "You wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job.  they just send you your welfare check." 

As described by Governor Mitt Romney, in a letter written on May 19, 2005, the action on welfare taken by President Obama this July was a concession to states' rights.  

In this letter, Romney and 7 other governors request the waivers Obama just granted.  Their purpose was to gain more state-level flexibility to vary work requirements for welfare so they could try new approaches.  George Bush never got around to granting their request.  Obama did.

Take a look at the 8 governors who signed this letter.  Again, the letter was written to request the action that was finally taken by President Obama this July.  

Gov. Mitt Romney, MA
Gov. Haley Barbour, MS
Gov. Gov. Kenny C. Guinn, NV
Gov. Jeb Bush, FL
Gov. Mike Huckabee, AR
Gov. George E. Pataki, NY
Gov. Linda Lingle, HI
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA

Now watch the 31 second ad.

Obama didn't gut work requirements for welfare.  He didn't TOUCH work requirements for welfare.  Nobody did.  Work requirements for welfare have not been reduced or removed, so they can't be "restored" by Romney. 

Obama has not acted or proposed to change work requirements for welfare.  Obama has consented  - at the request of numerous governors and state human services officials - to grant greater control of administration of welfare benefits to the states.  He has consented, as they have repeatedly requested, to allow individual states to try approaches that may include changing the work requirements, but only if they can quickly prove that the approach succeeds in getting people off welfare rolls more quickly.

Obama's own position is that work requirements should stay as they are now.  This is not a new position - he has made his belief in the reformed approach to welfare known many times.  But he has also conceded that the states can sometimes be the best place to try out inventive new ideas.

Human Services officials from a number of states have complained for years that they have to jump through too many federal hoops (like specific work requirements) when they want to experiment with how they administer welfare benefits in their own state.  Governors from both parties have proposed approaches that involve short-term changes to the work requirement but have the intent of getting people off welfare rolls more quickly.

In February of 2011, the President tasked the federal Department of Health and Human Services to find ways to support innovation in the states, without sacrificing the goals met by the work requirements.  He directed DHHS staff to meet with the governors interested in experimenting with their state programs, and find out more about what they wanted to do. 

The department came up with a system in which states could have more control over how they administrated welfare, providing they test their ideas first with pilot programs.  The plan involves giving states that apply for them conditional waivers to get around specific work requirements, as long as they can show measurable, incremental results.  In other words, a state can apply for a waiver to the work requirement in order to test a new approach.  But before they can implement it statewide, they have to show through rigorous evaluation that the new approach will result in helping people to move to self-sufficiency.

It is incorrect and untrue to say that President Obama has proposed or moved to eliminate the work requirement from welfare.  There is no proposed or completed plan coming from the White House to remove the work requirement.  Many states have no plans to change their welfare system.  Obama's decision granted requests by some states for waivers to the work requirement, giving them more freedom to break new ground.

On 7/12/12, President Obama signed off on an official memo from DHHS to the states, detailing a plan to respond to their requests.  It grants more leeway to states to try "experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects," but stresses that the goal remains helping people get back on their feet and gainfully employed, rather than dependent on welfare. 

To ensure that changes don't result in greater dependency, the memo states: "HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes." 

The memo reflects Obama's often-stated belief that the welfare-to-work approach is critical, and while states will be allowed a chance to think creatively, they "must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach".  If a state's new pilot program is not showing an ability to meet targets quickly, that state may lose its freedom to experiment.  The President was clear that there would be a limited window of time during which he would waive the work requirements standard.  The memo articulates the expectation that "any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes."

In a letter addressed to state officials accompanying the memo, Acting HHS Asst. Secretary George Sheldon cautioned that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was "only interested in approving waivers (to the work requirement) if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits."

Sheldon added, "It is critical that we work together to develop effective employment strategies that prepare workers for the jobs of the 21st century."

On Tuesday, the Romney campaign released an ad saying the President had just "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements."  Under Obama's new plan, the ad tells you, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

Here is a copy of the memo sent from the Department of Health and Human Services to state HHS officials.