Why judge refused to block Pennsylvania voter ID law

A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday declined to block a new voter ID law that critics charge will suppress turnout among poor, elderly, and minority voters likely to support President Obama.

The ruling was the latest salvo in an escalating legal war across the country over voting procedures and requirements in advance of the November presidential election.

The case is one of several voter ID laws passed by Republican lawmakers that are being challenged in court as a form of voter suppression. Supporters say showing ID at the polls is an efficient safeguard against voter fraud, including voting by non-citizens.

After Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the ID law in March, the state House majority leader boasted that the new requirement would help deliver the state’s key electoral votes to Mr. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

In his ruling, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson called the politician’s remarks “disturbing,” and “tendentious,” but he said the voter ID applies equally to all voters in the state and does not violate any constitutional protections.

The new law “does not expressly disenfranchise or burden any qualified elector or group of electors,” Judge Simpson wrote.

“It imposes only a limited burden on voters’ rights, and the burden does not outweigh the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep,” he said in the 70-page decision.

Wednesday’s ruling focused on the request to temporarily block the law ahead of the election, not the entirety of the law itself. An appeal is expected.

Obama’s own Justice Department is seeking to block similar laws in Texas and South Carolina, and is considering filing a new lawsuit against the Pennsylvania measure.

The Pennsylvania case began in May when lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other groups asked Simpson to invalidate the law on grounds that it would disenfranchise and deter hundreds of thousands of qualified voters who lacked the required government-issued identification.

Simpson rejected those arguments, saying that state lawmakers did not violate any protections of the Pennsylvania or federal constitutions by requiring voters to show a drivers’ license or other photo ID before casting a ballot.

“The photo ID requirement … is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,” he wrote.

“The Commonwealth’s asserted interest in protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest sufficiently weighty to justify the burden,” he said.

During a six-day hearing last month, state officials said there had been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania. But they said the measure nonetheless was necessary to safeguard and bolster the integrity of the election process.  

Critics said the new law was a partisan effort to disenfranchise certain vulnerable voters who would have difficulty obtaining the supporting documents necessary to qualify for the mandated ID.

Democrats argue that such voters are more likely to support Democratic candidates — including Obama.

In denying the requested injunction, Simpson said the commonwealth was prepared to offer free state-issued IDs, and that elderly or disabled voters are permitted to vote via absentee ballot.

In addition, he said, any citizen who arrives at the polls without the necessary ID must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if they present identification to the board of elections within six days.

The judge said his ruling is in line with the US Supreme Court‘s decision upholding Indiana‘s voter ID law in 2008, and decisions upholding similar laws in New Mexico, Georgia, and Michigan.

Simpson said only one voter ID law had been blocked since the Supreme Court’s decision in 2008. Wisconsin‘s voter ID law, passed in 2011, is the target of four different challenges. It is currently blocked. The case is under appeal.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (2)

  1. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 08/16/2012 - 02:10 pm.

    It’s instructive

    that all of the Left’s lawsuits are in state court and not in federal court. Why? Because SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID laws in four other states. State courts with liberal judges give them more opportunities to win or appeal their loss in hopes the laws are stalled and put on hold until after election day.

    Look, there’s only one political party that opposes this mundane measure because there’s only one party that cheats and depends on those bogus votes to win. Everyone knows these laws are reasonable in a society where having to show two forms of photo ID are commonplace to even cash a check.

    It’s just hilarious how so desperate the left is to maintain their ability to cheat that they don’t even care how obviously guilty they appear.

  2. Submitted by Bree M on 08/21/2012 - 10:39 pm.

    Voters are ENTITLED to vote

    There is one supreme flaw in both the Judge’s decision, and the entirety of the push for Voter ID. That includes all allegations of “cheating”.

    For Minnesota at least, our State constitution states that citizens are ENTITLED to vote.
    Citizens are not granted the right to vote, they already have it.
    Thus, the burden to “prove” that somebody has the right to vote is not on the voter, its on YOU. The burden to prove the case for limiting people’s right to vote, and thus undermining democracy is on YOU.
    There are easier, simpler and less restrictive ways to prevent supposed ‘fraud’ where the burden is not on the voter. The fact that Voter ID is being pushed regardless reveals that it has nothing to do with actual fraud.

    It is no accident that these laws have been nicknamed Jim Crow after the Poll Tax laws of old. Thats their intent, to restrict. And no accident that Voter Purges, restrictions on early voting and ballots are also appearing at the same time. It has nothing to do with ‘fraud’, and everything to do with making it harder for ‘undesirables’ to vote.

Leave a Reply