Kane Will Defer to Corbett on Voter ID

AG Kane
AG Kane

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has stated that the decision on whether to appeal the overturn of Voter ID will be the Governor’s.

Last week, Judge McGinley found that implementation efforts were insufficient to ensure free and fair elections, but also that the voter ID law is unconstitutional. When the ruling came out, many turned to Kane for her decision on whether to appeal the ruling. She served as co-counsel to the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth along with an outside firm commissioned by the Office of General Counsel.

Today, Kane’s office released a statement saying that “To avoid further public confusion, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane clarifie[d] that decision to appeal voter ID court ruling rests solely with Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth.”

Her office also noted that when she took office a year ago, she expressed concern with the implementation of the Voter ID law, but went ahead with its legal defense.

Kane’s deference to Corbett on the appeal decision is an effort to preempt criticism from Democrats who have been outspoken against the Voter ID law.

The Governor, meanwhile, faces a dilemma. If he appeals the decision, he risks aggravating – and mobilizing – the Democratic base. If he does not defend the law, which enjoys solid majority support according to most polls, he risks angering conservatives.

Corbett’s decision will be similar to the one Kane made last year with the Defense of Marriage Act. Kane refused to defend DOMA, and in a statement last week after the Voter ID ruling, her office released the following statement addressing the difference in these two cases.

“Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney is obligated to withdraw from a case when they have a fundamental disagreement with their client.  Additionally, it was quite clear from the Office of Attorney General’s legal analysis that DOMA unconstitutionally violated the rights of due process and equal protection. Based on existing case law, the Voter ID law appeared to be constitutional on its face. The issue was always the implementation of the law.”

Kane did receive some criticism for this decision from those who claimed she was politicizing her office and reneging on her promise to be a prosecutor, not a politician.

Corbett and the Secretary of the Commonwealth have until January 27th to decide whether they will appeal the Voter ID ruling.


13 Responses

  1. @David Ding Dong Diano Nice try, but in the meantime…can you say….S-E-N-A-T-O-R S-E-S-T-A-K ?! Lol.

  2. Bono-
    I’d venture that Danny doesn’t know much of anything beyond wanting to use unnecessary voterID requirements to suppress black voters.

  3. Denny Bonavita – if you KNOW about voter fraud, why haven’t you reported it to the Philly DA or thei AG? The truth is you believe there is voter fraud, but you don’t know it. Quit casting aspersions unless you have the facts. Typical anti-Philadelphia charges from the hinterlands.

  4. Fake-Liberal-Lion-
    I think Kane is just shoving this voterID mess up Corbett’s rear-end. She knows it’s a bad law, and opposes it, but she can stick Corbett with political baggage of pursing it. I think it’s a smart move on her part to hang Corbett by his own rope.

    I’d like her to go a bit farther by praising the decision so effusively, that if there was an appeal, the ACLU would call her to the stand for their side. 🙂

    Denny Bonavita-
    Voter turnout in Philly is one of the lowest percentages in the state. It would be less effort to bring more people out to the polls, than find people to go around impersonating voters.
    Philly Commissioner Al Schmidt produced his own report that found no actual pattern of fraud. The irregularities that were found were all rare and simple clerical ones like wife handed voter slip for her deceased husband and no one catching it.

    So, not a case of “the dead voting” but rather the living being handed the wrong form to sign by the poll worker at the table by accident.

  5. MOST of us KNOW there is voter fraud in Philly. Why isn’t it reported? Because unless you can require voters to produce photo ID, you can’t detect it. I don’t know everybody in my voting precinct by sight. You have to have photo ID to REGISTER. Democrats love to cheat, that’s the bottom line.

  6. I read the article. John Fund only looks conservative to left-wing extremists. I notice you didn’t contest the facts at all such as Pennsylvania being the real outlier when it comes to Voter ID. And your ignorant ALEC reference leads me to believe you were too arrogant to even read it.
    Tick tock.
    Observer is on the wrong side of history.

  7. National Review is bring “facts and context” to the table? LOLolol… that would be a First! Like, “Sarah Palin brings Intelligence and Wit to the discussion.” Or, “fox News brings accurate reporting and well-reasoned analysis to the issue.” Thanks for the morning laugh!

    TurdsEye should be made to testify at any appeal: “Voter ID will enable us to win PA for Romney!” That is the ONLY reason this ALEC-written piece of garbage was enacted by our corrupt legislature: fear of the Voter.

  8. Well…well…well…David Diano…I told you she supported everything Corbett did as A.G.! Now you and her can kiss those 2016 Senate hopefuls GOODBYE!!!!!…..;-)


    I understand the rationale behind putting the ball in Corbett’s court.

    However, considering the decision, and the evidence in the case regarding problems of disenfranchisement vs the unsupported claims of voter fraud ….
    YOU should
    1) speak out strongly to applaud and reinforce the decision while it is in effect.
    2) vocally praise the legal reasoning.
    3) combat the false narratives about voter fraud

  10. I’m not sure a majority agree with the law. If there is a majority, I think it’s because they agree with a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the law, or are ignorant of the problems legitimate voters have getting the IDs.

    There is too high a number of people who erroneously believe that there is a problem with voter fraud.

  11. If he does not defend the law, which enjoys solid majority support according to most polls, he risks angering conservatives.

    Because conservatives, and the corporate media, suck? And because people have no idea what the intention of the law is.

Comments are closed.

  • When Should The Special Elections For The PA House Be Held?

    • May 16, 2023 (Primary Day) (51%)
    • March, 2023 (47%)
    • April, 2023 (2%)

    Total Voters: 173

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen