PENNSYLVANIA — Political reporters and commentators here will continue to ponder, as the Philadelphia Inquirer did on November 9, Pennsylvania’s future swing state status. Even so, there are other key issues confronting the Keystone State and its political press corps—issues that will continue to be clouded by inflamed rhetoric and political money.
Here are four evolving stories Pennsylvania’s political reporters should continue to cover closely in the days and months ahead:
1. Voter Access. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson in October delayed Pennsylvania’s voter ID requirement, he didn’t kill it. Elections next year are set (though not certain) to be the first with the law—requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls—in place.
So, how will that work? What issues will arise? And how does Pennsylvania’s evolving voter ID story fit into the broader story of voter access around the country? There will be many threads here for reporters to follow.
This year, election rights advocates expressed concerns—both before and after November 6—over how misinformation and confusion stemming from the not-yet-in-effect law may have affected voter turnout here. Voters faced a “cyclone of confusion created by Pennsylvania’s voter ID law,” wrote the Allentown Morning Call on Election Day, though the paper described area turnout as “brisk” nonetheless.
Turns out, Pennsylvania was one of two key states to “report a material decline in turnout” this year from 2008, as the New York Times’s Nate Silver wrote on November 12. The relative lack of attention paid to the state by the presidential campaigns was likely a factor here. What were others, and, was confusion around voter ID among them?
Democratic state lawmakers have called for investigations, citing reports of voter ID-related confusion at polling places and the high number of provisional ballots, and the ACLU and NAACP, among other groups, are “gearing up to reverse the [ID] law.”
Election Day results didn’t really surprise. As with past presidential elections, margins in Philadelphia offset Republican victories nearly everywhere else. In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Romney got zero votes, “the kind of numbers that set Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud, angst,” wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer in an interesting door-knocking story, but “may not be so startling after all” given, as a political science professor told the paper, “ ‘these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic’.”
But, with the state tantalizingly within Republican reach every four years, and the confusion surrounding the implementation of the voter ID law, expect the “voting wars” to carry on here. Reporters will need to follow closely.
2. Black Gold and Texas Tea. Well, not exactly. Oil wasn’t a key issue in the 2012 election, but coal and natural gas both played roles and promise to be players in the coming years in this and other swing states.
Coal-fueled ads (and campaign rhetoric) were all over the Pennsylvania airwaves this fall, courtesy of Tom Smith, the Republican who lost his bid to unseat US Sen. Robert Casey and, in the campaign’s final week, from the Romney campaign (reminding Western Pennsylvania that he “likes” coal). The rhetoric did not stop on November 6. The country’s largest privately-owned coal mining company announced layoffs (largely in Ohio and Utah) the day after Election Day, “blaming,” as the Washington Post reported, “a ‘war on coal’ by the Obama administration,” a “charge repeatedly leveled during the election,” the Post noted, although “energy analysts say that the coal-mining business is suffering because of competition from low-cost natural gas and rising production costs of coal.” More challenges are certainly ahead for the industry in this state and others.
At the same time, the burgeoning natural gas industry promises more jobs, cheaper energy, and concerns about both its environmental cost and how much it pays—or doesn’t pay—in state taxes. “Gas drilling,” as a recent AP headline had it, “presents President Barack Obama with historic choices” (a Pennsylvania government official is quoted in the piece expressing “concern” over potential federal regulations on oil and gas development in the state).