Pennsylvania Voter ID law blocked by Judge
By Jane Susskind on 10/02/2012 in Pennsylvania, voter ID with 31 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 3 minutes
In a ruling today, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson put the Pennsylvania voter ID debate to rest by ruling that voters in Pennslyvania will not have to show a photo ID to vote, at least for now. NBC News reports,
Simpson’s ruling means that the photo ID requirement won’t be in effect for the Nov. 6 election, but it may be in effect for future elections. His decision did not strike down the entire law; in fact he rejected efforts by those challenging to law to stop state officials from educating voters about the voter ID requirement.
Simpson also said that those challenging the law have conceded that the part of the law which requires proof of identification for absentee voting does not harm would-be voters and may be implemented.
Todd Wiseman / Texas Tribune
The ruling essentially mandates that a voter’s “provisional ballot” cannot be invalidated because that voter refuses to show identification, but election officials still have the right to ask for an ID. It also leaves open the future of voter ID laws in Pennsylvania, postponing the debate to a non-election year.
This news might come as a disappointment to the majority of Pennsylvania registered voters, who favored voter ID laws in order to prevent alleged voter fraud. Among Republican leaders who might be disappointed is Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who admitted earlier this year that the Pennsylvania voter ID law “is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
What’s your opinion on the ruling? Is it fair to postpone the voter ID debate until next election?
Leave Your Comment →
31 Comments
ricklondon
10.02.2012
@ricklondon
Common Sense – If you’re party has a decent platform, you don’t have to spend time and money to hire people to supress voters….If I were the GOP (I once was); next time I’d take that money spent to commit fraud by my own hired consultants and create some kind of platform that made sense and not some kind of big govt theocracy that didn’t work for our founding fathers in England and it sure as hell is not going to work for us here now in America.
Chad Peace
10.02.2012
@Chad_Peace
Lol … a lot of truth here.
Lucas Eaves
10.02.2012
@lucaseaves
We need voter ID’s in France, so I have never been against it, but seeing that voter fraud is nearly nonexistent and that asking people to make an idea within the next month, I think it is great that a judge put an end to it.
Jane Susskind
10.02.2012
@jsusskind
Well, the judge didn’t put an end to it. He just postponed it. I think this was a good ruling due to the timing of the legislation. Because it’s an election year, voter ID laws that primarily disenfranchise certain groups of voters seem like blatantly partisan legislation. The debate will probably continue post election
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.02.2012
@cassidynb
I think it’s wise of Simpson to close the case for the time being, but leave the debate up for discussion after the election year is over
Steve Stratton
10.02.2012
PA should continue to enforce it regardless of the judge’s opinion!!
Alex Gauthier
10.02.2012
@alexg
How does one enforce laws that don’t exist?
Darryl Cooley
10.02.2012
what I want to know is how nearly 800,000 people in Pennsylvania manage to have any semblance of a life WITHOUT an ID. I also wonder how many of those 800,000 people are illegal immigrants and have no voting rights anyway.
Alex Gauthier
10.02.2012
@alexg
It might be hard to believe, but not everyone in the U.S. is affluent enough to own a vehicle, nor should they be forced to own one.
Jane Susskind
10.02.2012
@jsusskind
People who don’t drive, don’t go to University etc. This makes up a lot of America, and these people are citizens with voting rights. You might want to check out this study done by Brennan Justice: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id
Trevor Britton
10.02.2012
voter fraud isn’t an issue in most states, the measures taken in many states are unnecessary.
in ohio the law they passed, and we rejected, would require students (who move every year usually) to update their ID with their new address. some would do it, most wouldn’t bother. they are legal citizens with the right to vote, not trying to cause fraud, but if they didn’t either pay for a new ID or submit to get a change of address for that ID, they wouldnt be able to vote.
this is one example.
Margaret Bell
10.02.2012
No to many illegals voting and this election is to important to allow illegals to vote. Thats what Obama is banking on and this judge was paid to change his opinion. He had ruled one that it would stop people from being able to vote. Do you smell a rat?
William Boardman
10.03.2012
@williamboardman
ANY evidence for this ANYWHERE?
Suzanne T Williams
10.02.2012
Yes, it is fair to postpone it. As the primary reason for enacting it is now a moot point anyway. I predict it will now die a quiet death given that it is no longer of use to the Republicans for its intended purpose.
James Patterson
10.02.2012
It is fair to postpone for this election. Should give people time to get their
Paul Richards
10.02.2012
I live in Ohio. Personally i dont see a problem with having to show a valid ID to vote and say who you say you are.
You need a valid License/ID to drive a car, purchase age restricted products, bank ect. And if youre ever stopped by police you need an ID to verify your identity. Its pretty much a nessecisty to function in society anyway. What is one more use for it going to matter? if people are already required to have an ID and keep it up to date to be able to function in society then they should already have one anyway..so showing it to a poll worker to get a ballot as proof theyre who they claim to be shouldnt be an issue.
When you go vote and youve moved..to vote provisional if you forgot to update your address you have to show a ultility bill or a pay stub with your name and new address on it. Showing a state issued ID is more legitiment then a piece of paper with your info on it from a third party private company.
Ive always had a current ID since i was old enough to need one, its part of being an adult and fuctioning in adult society.
So maybe its just me? i dunno but im not getting what all the hubabaloo is about…..
Benjamin Price
10.02.2012
The problem with showing your Id is this, Do you have to pay for and Id or Drivers license? of course the answer is yes. Which makes it a poll tax because you have to pay for such Id or License. Check the 24th amendment out. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Eddie Denise
10.02.2012
In NY I showed ID when I first registered. Havent needed to do so since.
Eddie Denise
10.02.2012
In NY I showed ID when I first registered. Havent needed to do so since.
John Majkrzak
10.02.2012
@John Majkrzak
If Obama wins in November then ALL voter ID laws will be made invalid in 3.5 years by his likely to happen Supreme Court judge appointments.
Gary Arend
10.02.2012
How about if your voter registration card includes your photo & you must present your card before you vote? Would that be a problem? We do instant background checks on gun purchases to prevent criminals & crazies from buying guns – is that an infringement on my rights? Is presenting a photo id to prevent voter fraud any different? And Benjamin, a photo id can be obtained for free from PennDot or the Dept. of State so there is no poll tax.
calvin
10.02.2012
Ive heard welfare recipients must show photo ID to obtain benefits. I dont know if this is true, but if so, could it be said that if you can “afford” to obtain ID to get welfare, you can show the same ID when voting?
Johnny Ritchie
10.02.2012
Yes. Voter suppressors should be placed in jail…..and not allowed to VOTE.
Nicole Bond
10.02.2012
I have a few friends with discrepancies between their photo ID and voter registration who have been frantically trying to solve their issues before this election. (Voter re has first initial and last name, but license has full name… maiden name needs changed on registration, etc.) The law shouldn’t go away, but a dry run is in order…many don’t know the requirements or if they need to update their IDs. The only run through was during the primaries and only party members get to participate in those in PA. As a Pennsylvanian, I am happy to hear about this postponement.
William Boardman
10.03.2012
@williamboardman
There are no cases of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, the the state stipulated to that fact at the very beginning of the first hearing on this case before Judge Simpson.
For more, see: http://ivn.us/2012/08/18/voter-id-law-may-yet-fail-in-pennsylvania/
and here: http://ivn.us/2012/08/17/voter-id-ruling-outsmarts-the-law-for-now/
This has been a partisan effort from the start, aimed at vote suppression, and passed the legislature on an all-Republican effort.
[Hi Jane ;-)))]
William Boardman
10.03.2012
@williamboardman
Also, Judge Simpson didn’t exercise much judgment here. Having upheld the bill the first time around (he’s an elected Republican], the Supreme Court reversed him and remanded it with instructions that made it all but impossible for him to rule other than he did.
William Boardman
10.03.2012
@williamboardman
And here’s a truly appalling fact from the “majority” link in the last graf:
About seven in eight voters (87 percent) answered “true” when asked if the state requires a photo ID to vote. Almost all voters (99 percent) said they have a valid photo ID. Nearly six in 10 (59 percent) favor requiring one and nearly half (46 percent) strongly favor it. Of the people in favor, more than half (54 percent) say they would still favor the requirement even if many eligible voters would be prevented from voting because they will not have one.
In other words, 54 per cent of these people would NOT defend the constitution —
of Pennsylvania or the United States.
astrosoup
10.05.2012
@astrosoup
We should just dip people’s fingers in blue dye.
Kevin Huxford
10.06.2012
Each side has some inaccurate information in their arguments.
In states where the voter ID required must be an official photo ID, the states will give it free if for the purposes for voting and obtaining it would be a hardship. That doesn’t do enough to satisfy all the “poll-tax-ish” concerns or the issue that rushing to put it in place before the Presidential election is wise.
Those who are for the ID laws bemoan all that you can’t do without a photo ID, including opening a bank account. That’d be inaccurate. Look it up for yourself: the laws don’t require an ID, though they assume leaning towards its primary use by the banks. You can still show your social security card and proof of address (utility bill or something similar). They will accept IDs that don’t have all the required information on that single ID (photo, name, address, etc). Most voter ID laws won’t accept your student ID or your VA ID (which is criminal, in my mind, as you’re denying those who risked life and limb), but they will accept…your gun license. Which only strengthens the argument that it is about voter suppression.
Folks, individual voter fraud is small, statistically, as to be non-existent. The real voter fraud is in stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent absentee ballots (by individuals with access to them in bulk), the destruction of legally cast ballots (by those who have access to them) and the specter of fraud posed by electronic machines that don’t provide a proper audit trail (by…stop me if you heard this before…people who have access to them).
At best, voter ID laws are being past to pacify the public who doesn’t realize where the real fraud is occurring and, at worst, it is to stifle groups that largely vote Democratic.
Ra Segarra
10.07.2012
because the communist wants the illegal aliens to vote for him
William Braman
10.08.2012
obamanism