In the year that passed since Governor Corbett signed the Pennsylvania Voter ID requirement into law there has been much debate regarding the constitutional merit of such a measure. Two injunctions and a lawsuit later, there is still no official ruling on the constitutionality of the Voter ID law.
The law’s proponents say that it would help to cut down on voter fraud; others claim that is not an issue.
Activist groups claim that such a law would disenfranchise certain voter groups such as urban voters, the sick, and the elderly. In the past year the state of Pennsylvania has made it progressively easier to obtain the required identification.
Since a ruling by the Commonwealth Court is still far off, with hearings slated to begin on July 15th, the ID requirement will not be enforced in the May primary elections.
We asked our readers if they think the Pa. Supreme Court should uphold the law as constitutional this July, or strike it down.
Out of the 687 readers who voted, a majority of readers (64%) supported striking down the law on the grounds that it is superfluous by nature and would only serve to diminish voter turnout.
36% said that the law is reasonable and the questions of ‘liberal access’ is no longer relevant as voters have had enough time to obtain proper identification.
More than a year after being signed into law, the Pa. Voter ID requirement is still on hold. Should the Pa. Supreme Court uphold the law as constitutional or strike it down?
- Strike it down. The law was intended to disenfranchise voters; electoral fraud is not an issue. (64%)
- Uphold the law. It’s a reasonable measure of protection, and voters have had sufficient time to obtain ID so access is no longer a question. (36%)