Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down

[The Illusive Man]

The GOP are still trying to push Voter ID laws and are meeting pushback. Some may remember this law from 2012, just in time to affect the election between Obama and Romney. Its passage was continuous to say the least.

The ruling by Judge Robert Simpson.

“The photo ID requirement of Act 18 is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life. The Commonwealth’s asserted interest in protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest sufficiently weighty to justify the burden.”

Despite attempts at justification, they could not ignore the fact that it is a burden placed upon voters. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then kicked the ruling back to a lower court and told them to demonstrate that voter disenfranchisement was not occurring. This meant easy access to photo id or alternative identification. Two years and $5 million later Judge Bernard L. McGinley rules that voters are being disenfranchised. Especially low income, elderly and disabled voters. Surprise!

Here is an excerpt from McGinley’s ruling.

Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal. Further, a substantial threat still exists to the franchise of hundreds of thousands of registered electors, and uncounted qualified electors, despite Respondents' unfettered ability to continue, strengthen, and clarify voter education efforts and to provide compliant ID to the hundreds of thousands of electors who lack it.

Petitioners established a clear right to relief from enforcement of the photo ID provisions in the Voter ID Law. The right to vote, fundamental in Pennsylvania, is irreplaceable, necessitating its protection before any deprivation occurs. Deprivation of the franchise is neither compensable nor reparable by after-the-fact legal remedies, necessitating injunctive and declaratory relief.

Petitioners also established "greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested." Kuznik, 902 A.2d at 504. Enjoining the provisions in the Voter ID Law that are seemingly incapable of being administered without resulting in de facto disenfranchisement preserves the integrity of our elections. By contrast, denying the requested relief would only add to the chaos in implementation and inaccurate messaging that has ensued smce the statute's enactment and Respondents' inconsistent implementation.

Don’t fret folks, Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Rob Gleason will try to push this right back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court so history can repeat itself.

[Vypernight]

I'd be okay with requiring an ID to vote if they didn't make you feel like you're pulling teeth to get an ID in the first place.  I mean this past time, I needed about half a dozen documents to prove who I am, despite voting and having and ID for years.  If you're a married woman, you need proof for every time you change your name.  It's all stupid.

When we voted, they asked for Any kind of identification, and gave a number of people who don't speak English well enough slack to at least prove who they were.  That worked just fine.

It's just more ways the GOP is distracting people from the fact that they have no clue how to fix the economy.  That and finding cheap ways to gain more votes since they know they're losing support. 

[The Illusive Man]

I'd be okay with requiring an ID to vote if they didn't make you feel like you're pulling teeth to get an ID in the first place.

Unfortunately, the purpose of requiring an ID is to create obstacles thus disenfranchising voters.

[Askold]

On one hand Finland requires voter ID and that has never been a problem, on the other hand apparently getting an ID is a lot easier here.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Yeah, if they're gonna require Voter ID, they should make it reasonably easy to get it.