The Governor Tom Corbett administration has asked a higher court to review the Voter ID ruling.
This differs from a formal appeal. In the legal sense an appeal is asking for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. What was filed on Monday by the state was asking for the trial court to re-examine its opinion.
“The administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that citizens are afforded the opportunity to get an ID in the unlikely event they do not have one,” Corbett’s general counsel James Schultz said in a statement. “We disagree with the court’s decision that a statute requiring someone present a photo identification in order to cast a vote is unconstitutional.”
In the ruling earlier this month, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley said the law was unconstitutional.
“[The Voter ID Law is] invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote,” he wrote.
“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal.”
McGinley said the state’s efforts to make it easier for voters to obtain ID – or to mitigate any problems by using provisional ballots – are insufficient.
Although the Attorney General’s office co-represented the state in the case, Kathleen Kane deferred all judgment on the appeal to the Governor’s office.
The state legislature passed the Voter ID law in spring 2012. It required that all voters furnish photo identification at the polls, including but not limited to a drivers licenses, passport, military ID, certain students ID and certain nursing home IDs.
Supporters of the law said it was necessary to prevent voter fraud. Opponents said it was a partisan effort to suppress the votes of minorities, the elderly and students who disproportionately lack ID and are more likely to support Democrats.
The voter ID requirement was never in effect during an election due to ongoing injunctions from the courts.
Loading ...
9 Responses
Conservatives will never be happy with ANY judge who doesn’t rule the exact right way everytime. If brilliant jurisprudence was a prerequisit, then how did Clarence Thomas get his job in the first place? The really wrong thing about this law was that it did not address official voter fraud concentrating on the twaddle that someone might try to imperonate someone at the polls. If your concerned about dead people voting, that sounds more like official fraud not perpetrated by an individual voter down at his local precinct.
Kathleen you bet your butt I get angry over my “right” to vote. You are welcome to give away any right you want. Don’t touch mine. Corbett knows he can’t win if voters can vote. Really you are ok with him spending Million + on this bs!!! Really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffEaMXQAbc&feature=share&list=PL6HH3nr3EtYsAEPsqZLkynQK96ORq4Gdj&index=14
If anything about this is unconstitutional, it is Liberal judges whose jobs come from party loyalty rather than brilliant jurisprudence. Sane citizens don’t willingly risk diluting the power of their votes with the many votes of those who vote early, often and everywhere.
“The Governor Tom Corbett administration has asked a higher court to review the Voter ID ruling.” Your first sentence is wrong. It’s not a higher court, it’s the same court. A motion to reconsider is a formal prerequisite to an appeal.
Let me use the “Universal Healthcare” argument: “every civilized Nation in the World has it”. Mexico has it; Canada has it but when Pennsylvania tries to enact it everyone cries “voter suppression”. Really?
Sounds more like: “don’t take away our right to even allow dead people or impostors to vote Democrat”. Why verify one of the most sacred aspects of Democrat elections? Honesty.
Unfortunately some people do not know the difference between a privilege and a right. Voting is a right. Airplane boarding, etc are privileges. Also ID’s that you can use for some of those privileges are not “good enough” for the voting requirements passed by PA. the more you know.
Kathleen3 ; seems I just read the same inappropriate comments posted by someone who thinks there should be id required. There is a difference between a US Constitutional guaranteed right and a statutory privledge that can vary from State to State.
The vile rhetoric of the above post is common among those who oppose Voter ID.
What is it that prompts such anger over voting yet elicits not even a whimper when they apply for government subsidies, board an airplane, or purchase liquor/cigarettes?
Of course the jackass will appeal. He has the tax payers blank check to spend another million trying to prevent voters from voting. His only chance to get re-elected!! Stop all voters from voting. Voter fraud. What a joke – not one case of In person voting fraud.
Tom Corbett you are a joke. Take the oil money you have been paid to sell off Pennsylvania and Leave!’ Just leave. You are a total disgrace.