Rich Fitzgerald’s mad voter ID plan |

Rich Fitzgerald’s mad voter ID plan

So what do you do if you’re a Democrat, the third-most-powerful elected leader in Pennsylvania, and in a conniption fit over the new voter ID law that you think is “disenfranchising” but remains the law of the commonwealth as it continues to wend its way through the courts as the Nov. 6 election rapidly approaches?

If you’re Rich Fitzgerald, Allegheny County’s chief executive, you propose a bizarre and specious voter ID program of your own that would flood the electoral zone with tamper-inviting, fraud-promoting 8.5-by-11-inch sheets of regular paper issued under the authority of two newly christened election-integrity watchdogs — the John J. Kane Regional Centers and Community College of Allegheny County.

As 19th-century German poet Heinrich Heine once so eloquently put it, “Ordinarily he is insane, but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid.”

Nationally recognized voter-fraud expert Heather Heidelbaugh (she helped crack ACORN), a Republican Allegheny County councilwoman, calls Mr. Fitzgerald’s proposal a “circumvention” of the law. It is.

Pennsylvania Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman says the Kanes’ and CCAC’s ID-issuing authority is necessarily intended for those directly associated with those institutions. It is.

Eating on the Shakespearean “insane root that takes reason prisoner” is not “leadership.” It does, however, call into serious question Rich Fitzgerald’s motives.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.