Slattery Out of 134th House Race

Democrat Patrick Slattery has dropped his bid to be state representative for the 134th House district

Democrat Patrick Slattery says he's no longer vying for the 134th House seat that opponent Republican in a special election in May.

Slattery posted on Facebook that he has withdrawn from the race due to personal and professional constraints.

Slattery and Mackenzie squared off in a special election to see who would fill the unexpired term of former Rep. Doug Reichley, who left state politics to become a Lehigh County judge.

The two men were set to compete again in November's general election for a two-year term for the same seat.

Though he had heard "rumblings," Mackenzie said he learned of Slattery's decision while going door-to-door in Emmaus on Monday to meet voters. "Didn't you hear?" he said a constituent, who had been watching the local TV news, told him. "Your opponent dropped out of the race."

But Mackenzie said he intends to continue to go door-to-door to meet voters nonetheless. He had planned to be knocking on doors in Lower Macungie on Tuesday evening. "It's the best way to get out your message," he said, "and to represent the people of our district."

Of Slattery, Mackenzie said, "I wish him well. He probably just didn't have the fight in him for a third time." (Slattery also had run for the seat in 2010 against Doug Reichley).

Mackenzie said it's possible he will face another contender if the Democratic Party names a candidate by early August to replace Slattery on the ballot.

Ted Williams July 04, 2012 at 11:11 AM
It's not surprising considering what he would be up against, now that the ALEC mandated voter suppression bill has been signed into law. Yesterday state election officials announced that 9.2% of the state's 8.2 million voters (mostly Democrats of course) do not have a PENNDOT Photo ID, thereby putting their right to vote in jeopardy. Of course, that was the plan. If you can't win fairly, fix the election. You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask Rep. Turzai.
Tim Killimaji July 04, 2012 at 01:02 PM
No reason for anyone not to have proper identification.
Logical Libertarian July 04, 2012 at 01:18 PM
Ted Williams are you serious with that nonsense? Your comment epitomizes why liberals can't run this is country. You're all emotionally irrational. You mean I have to present a valid id to obtain a library card or to buy beer at Wegmans (regardless of age), but I shouldnt need id for one of the most important duties in our country? Forget politics, that doesn't even make any sense. What's wrong with you?
Cheryl Saul July 04, 2012 at 02:06 PM
You must have photo ID to buy alcohol and cigarettes, drive a motorized vehicle, write a check in a store, etc. but people don't think it's necessary to provide one when doing one of the the most important things in this country...... voting?? Are you serious?? Some of the people of this country want freedom from just about everything. Well form yourself a country, live there with your freedoms and let's just see just how far your quality of life goes there. There are laws for damned good reasons. There is such a thing as too much freedom and the freedom for someone to show up at a poll, stating they are me, and forging my name to cast a ballot opposing my choice is one of them. I've often questioned the lax of the voting process.
Responsible Citizen July 04, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Sorry Tommy, but I agree with Ted AND I am not an "emotional, irrational liberal".....I am an Independent yet see how coincidentally "voter fraud" has become an issue with Republicans! I might think differently IF the amount or presence of so-called "voter fraud" WAS an issue! We have yet to see statistics to support this claim and subsequent expensive legislation. Voter ID is logical, however, I am more than skeptical of the timing and urgency for all this by the Republicans??? As time goes on, the behaviors, antics and politics we are observing from the Republicans is moving us, as well as other family and friends who are Independents, to vote Democrat in November!! Hopefully many others in our country will see through such tactics!
Responsible Citizen July 04, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Again....WHERE are these unusually high statistics of "voter fraud"???? And suddenly....why NOW is everyone concerned about this?? One would think it would have come up when Mr. Bush was elected and won narrowly against Al Gore??
Cheryl Saul July 04, 2012 at 02:20 PM
I've ALWAYS been concerned!! I don't need stats. If it's possible to commit voter fraud there needs to be photo ID. For me this has NOTHING to do with political party crap. It has to do with protecting our right to vote and making it count fairly. Drop the "Oh you're a <insert party affiliation here> garbage. I don't play that game.
Responsible Citizen July 04, 2012 at 02:32 PM
WOW!!! Such anger...you really need to calm down, Cheryl. We don't play that "game" either which is why we are Independents. Happy 4th!
Cheryl Saul July 04, 2012 at 02:39 PM
Anger? Do you always feel when someone is stating their feeling that it comes from anger? I type with emphasis. At least we can agree we aren't game players.
Ron Beitler July 04, 2012 at 03:45 PM
It's absolutely for political benefit that the issue has been pushed. That being said. . I just don't necessarily see the benefit. Other day running errands I needed photo ID for: 1. paying a bill at Kohls 2. Switching a new phone onto my plan at ATT 3. stopped by a pub to watch couple innings of the phillies with a friend 4. Driving my car 5. Using a debit card (optional but I never sign my cards) EVERYONE should have a photo ID card. I have an issue with this being done for political reasons, but I don't see a problem with having to present an ID to vote. Anyone can get a state ID for (I think) 36 bucks. Now is this some sort of variation of a poll tax? possibly... I just don't see the massive dis-enfranchisement happening that some people say this will cause. People don't vote cause they don't vote. And that is sad. No one who wants to vote won't be able to because of an ID. Anyone can get an ID. IMHO. Now FYI here is a good article that presents both sides fairly. http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/03/18/opinion/doc4f6537efb60e1648545975.txt
truth seeker July 04, 2012 at 03:55 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77811.html - this is what motivated Republicans in PA to pass voter ID. They clearly want to disenfranchise Dems. to give Romney a chance. Mike Turzai majority leader in the PA House said exactly that This matches Republican efforts in Texas, Wisconsin and in other places. If this is about voter fraud show us the numbers. After that phase the process in over a couple of years to guarantee this is not about short tem political gain. None of that will happen because this has nothing to do with voter fraud. Just ask Mr. Turzai
Patrick Slattery July 04, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Protecting the integrity of our voting system in Pennsylvania is clearly important. Data and statistics regarding voter fraud are vital tools, which help to avoid visceral, emotional and politically motivated legislative responses. Unfortunately, in the debate over the current PA Voter ID law, you will find no convincing data or statistics, which demonstrate any significant voter fraud. It is a law that provides a solution to a non-existent problem. Perhaps we should focus on a real problem. Most registered voters don’t vote regularly. Example: In the Special Election for the State House in the 134th, held on the normal Primary Election Day, 76% of registered voters did NOT participate. While the number of registered Democrats in the 134th is only 3% less than registered Republicans (41% to 44%), the turn out at the polls was 59% Republican and only 38% Democrat (a -21% difference in a -3% district). Voter participation is bad across party lines and decidedly horrible among Democrats. Rather than creating barriers to voting, we should be making it easier to vote. Other jurisdictions have found creative ways such as early voting and weekend voting to boost voter participation. When only 24% of registered voters are making our electoral decisions, we should all be concerned.
Patrick Slattery July 04, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Additionally, at a time of extremely heightened concern over the use of our tax dollars, spending even $1 on an unsubstantiated problem is unacceptable especially given the dramatic need for a comprehensive infrastructure funding strategy, public education funding and a substantial pension liability. The reason that we hear little from fiscal conservatives on this issue is that they know the Voter ID law benefits their preferred political party.
Rob Hamill July 04, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Democrats don't want Philadelphia voter fraud likey to be 20%, looked into. Philly disenfranchises everyones vote in PA. The Eric Holder argument used by the democrats that there is no voter fraud is disgusting. Also, Patrick, don't blame the voters for not getting elected, look in the mirror. Peple are not trusting of the words of the public sector unions that backed you.
for real July 05, 2012 at 12:31 AM
In the 134th primary I was a fan of Dennis Nemes. Unfortunately the state party insisted on Mackenzie. I did vote for Mackenzie even though I was torn. I think Mackenzie picked up some points when after a lawsuit was dropped on Slattery the night before a debate by the same folks who were hosting the debate, he dropped out as well. I think that showed good judgment and independence on his part. Speaking of looking in the mirror Mr. Hammill - if you look in the mirror you will probably see the one Republican who would have lost to Slattery. Glad it did not come down to that!
Ron Beitler July 05, 2012 at 12:46 AM
We no longer need "a days travel to get to the county seat" to vote. It's time for weekend voting. period.
Ted Williams July 05, 2012 at 11:17 AM
June 23, 2012 state Republican Party meeting in Harrisburg: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," - Rep. Turzai.
Ted Williams July 05, 2012 at 11:17 AM
June 23, 2012 state Republican Party meeting in Harrisburg: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," - Rep. Turzai.
Ted Williams July 05, 2012 at 11:17 AM
June 23, 2012 state Republican Party meeting in Harrisburg: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," - Rep. Turzai.
Ted Williams July 05, 2012 at 11:18 AM
June 23, 2012 state Republican Party meeting in Harrisburg: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," - Rep. Turzai.
Karen July 05, 2012 at 01:55 PM
I'm just not voting --- to disgusted with this system. It doesn't matter who we vote for - all politicians worry about is "their" agenda or "re-election" and creating filibusters, blah blah blah......
Rob Hamill July 05, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Hey "For real" I was the only person from the private sector to step up to the dish. Everyone else has been suckling on the public teat. You might be right about somebody having strong libertarian leanings being unelectable here, but I tend to doubt that. The party got what the party wanted here. But,... I never blamed the electorate for my not getting the party nod, and I never took money from special interests of any kind. Being in front of the curve is pretty thankless. The state rep position is one incredibly tough position for an individual to walk the line on and not become a tool.
ted.dobracki July 05, 2012 at 08:35 PM
How soon that we forget the installation of Bruce Marks into the PA Senate by a Federal Court in 1993, overturning the fraudulent election of William Stinson! The case even reached the Supreme Court of the US, where it was affirmed. The case was based on massive voter fraud, and collusion by the Board of Elections.
truth seeker July 05, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Ted that was voter fraud involving absentee ballots. This picture ID stuff for the PA polling places is a different matter all together. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Here is an article estimating up to 9% of voters do not have a photo ID. http://possibleexperience.blogspot.com/2012/07/pa-gop-steals-votes-from-750000-voters.html
ted.dobracki July 06, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Current photo IDs won't stop all voter fraud, but it would no doubt stop much voter fraud. There certainly has to be additional provisions to prevent all voter fraud. No system will ever be perfect, but current (or recently expired) ID can help stop many forms of voting fraud. In the state where I recently lived and was a poll worker for several elections, they had a very secure system for early voting at central locations, which also involved using current (or recently expired since the last election) photo ID. Proper ID was also crucial for the system we used to efficiently direct people where to go if they showed up at the wrong polling place. It was also made the job easier for our clerks to get people signed in properly, since even the workers who were life-long residents in that precinct didn't know who most of the voters were, and it made it easier to understand the voter's name. Finally, no voter would ever be turned away. If a person didn't have the proper ID, they still could vote provisionally, and would have plenty of time to resolve the issue later, as long as that was within two weeks, which is when the county certified the election. In reality, there were very few cases where this procedure was used. We almost always got people to the right place. The few provisional ballots we ever used at my site were for people who weren't registered at all or didn't want to go to the right place and not because of missing or faulty ID.
ted.dobracki July 06, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Patrick, the turnout statistics that you cite for the 2012 primary are not surprising, considering the fact that the top two races in PA (POTUS and US Senator) were still contested on the Republican side but were completely uncontested on the Democratic side. From that, we can conclude that your failure in the spring special election was bad luck to be in this primary. Democrats had little of consequence to vote for in their primary so the only reason for them to show up locally was to vote in your special race. Many were likely totally unaware. Considering those circumstances, it's actually quite remarkable that you did as well as you did in the special election! To illustrate how variable voting turnout can be in a primary, consider the following. At a polling place that I have supervised in Indiana, 293 Republican and 75 Democrats appeared for the primary in 2012. In 2008, when the very hot presidential contest was on the Democratic side, but where the Republican side was essentially decided, the turnout by party was completely reversed. Only 207 Republicans (30% lower) presented themselves, but 688 Democrats showed up. (almost 800% higher!) In other words, fewer than 12% of the Democrats who showed for the 2008 primary (which coincidentally was the first election where foto ID was required) showed up again in 2012. The turnout by party in PA was similarily motivated for 2012 primary.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something