Search
Close this search box.

Voter ID on Hold as Trial Wraps Up

Voter ID Mailer 1Regardless of whether the law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls is upheld in Commonwealth Court, the law will not be in effect for any November 2013 elections taking place. The state’s Attorney General office agreed to allow a temporary injunction against the law to stand for the remainder of the current election cycle.

In closing arguments, the state nevertheless argued that the plaintiff had not sufficiently proved the unconstitutionality of PA’s voter ID law. They said that the state had made the identification necessary for voting under the new law abundantly available to voters.

The state, during a period of soft rollout ahead of the November 2012 election, spent 5 million dollars to educate the public about the law. They as well in September of last year increased the number of allowed IDs to include nursing home and college IDs with expiration dates.

The plaintiff, represented by the ACLU, NAACP, League of Women Voters, and several other non-profit organizations claimed not only that the law was unconstitutional but that its implementation was insufficient to prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and lawyer for the plaintiff, was quoted in the Morning Call as saying to Judge Bernard L. McGinley that the law is “unreasonably and unnecessarily burdensome,” and said it infringes upon Pennsylvania citizens’ right to vote.

Over the course of the trial both sides brought officials and experts to testify on their behalf. Bernard Siskin, a Philadelphia statistician, argued that the voter ID law had disenfranchised up to 500,000 commonwealth voters.

This was rebutted by the state’s statistician, William Wecker, who argued that the testimony of Siskin was lacking in consideration of IDs other than driver’s licenses and PA Department of State IDs.

It is now up to Judge McGinley to decide. He has stated he will make a ruling by August 19th. Both sides in the trial have announced their intent to appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court should they lose.

7 Responses

  1. I love when people bring up the voting vs. buying a gun analogy in this debate.

    I’m willing to concede the similarity of them both being constitutionally protected rights (even though the 2nd amendment is really the right to bear arms and says nothing about buying them) – so lets just agree that you shouldn’t need an ID to buy a gun either. You only have to do what voters in PA already have to:

    1: If you want to exercise your right to buy a gun at some point in the future, you need to register with the county, providing your name, address, birth date, and the last 4 digits of your SSN (or your State ID number)
    2: If you want to be able to buy a gun in the spring, then you also have to identify your political affiliation
    3: After registering, your information will be kept in a statewide database that will be publicly available to anyone who requests it, and those public records will not only indicate that you are registered to buy guns but will indicate the date of every gun purchase you’ve ever made
    4: the first time you go to buy a gun at any gun shop you’ll need to bring proof of ID, although a utility bill would be sufficient

    So, gun rights advocates I put the ball in your court. Any takers?

  2. Dear COS Gromis-Baker: I want to apply to be a Virtual Knight of the Corbett Roundtable like the PA Ed’s top consultant Ron Tomalis. I want to become the Virtual Knight in Charge of Voter Suppression. I know that I’m not as agile as the PAGOP’s #1 RACE HUSTLER, Rob Gleason, but I’m a very quick learner. When and Where do I get my interview with your Dark Prince, John Brabender? I so dreadly yearn to feast at the Corbett feast with all those prodigious TAKERS!

  3. sean ryan-

    I think you may have set a new standard for the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a month.

    “Right to Vote is not used nearly as often as the right to bear arms.”

    I vote twice a year, and haven’t fired or owned a gun once in my whole life.

    6 million Pennsylvanians voted in 2008 election. There aren’t that many gun owners in the state. Of the ones that do own a gun, not all of them use it as often as they vote.

    Voting is a far more basic right than owning a gun. Pressing a button at the ballot box doesn’t directly kill people (though the GOP policies make living a lot tougher).

    The “background check” is not just to establish identity, but to check for criminal BACKGROUND or history of mental issues that would prevent one from owning a gun. It can also serve as a warning flag if someone is arming up with lots of gun purchases in a short time.

    If you get on a plane with an absentee ballot, you aren’t going to be stopped by security because of it.

  4. Ironically the liberals don’t want simple ID to verify people are who they are when voting but want full background checks when exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
    Difference is that the Right to Vote is not used nearly as often as the right to bear arms.

    hypocrites.

  5. The State’s lawyers would not have given in on extending the injunction if they were confident of winning. By oding so, they are trying to appear reasonable and accommodating (while the law itself is neither). Is the judge dumb enough to buy such tactics?

  6. “he law will not be in effect for any November 2013 elections taking place. The state’s Attorney General office agreed to allow a temporary injunction against the law to stand for the remainder of the current election cycle”
    … because this year’s elections are almost entirely local, and GOP doesn’t need to suppress/disenfranchise Philly until 2014.

  7. We need to have a MARCH ON HARRISBURG, the 2013 edition and stop in front of 112 State State Street. Chairman Rob Gleason, you are inspiring my people to have a record-setting turnout in 2014. It take someone like Chairman Gleason to keep reminding us that there are still well funded forces in this State that want to disenfranchise African-Americans. Thanks Chairman Gleason for exposing for us Tom Corbett’s strategy for re-election!

Email:
  • Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?


    • Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
    • No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
    • What's ByteDance? (0%)

    Total Voters: 30

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen