On Wednesday morning, a Pennsylvania judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction on Pennsylvania's controversial Voter ID law, meaning that it remains on the books for now. The plaintiffs—including 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite and the state's ACLU chapter—will now appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
In his ruling [PDF], Judge Robert Simpson acknowledged those "burdened by the voter ID requirement," but said, "At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for counsel." Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, he said, that "disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable."
Pennsylvania's voter ID law requires voters to present election officials with at least one of several types of government-issued identification. If they fail to bring the proper ID to the polling place, they are barred from voting. Proponents of the law say that it will prevent voter impersonation, though research shows that this form of fraud is virtually nonexistent in the United States.
Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, has lauded the passage of the law because it could "allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania." The law could disenfranchise as many as 1.4 million Pennsylvanians—most of them from traditionally Democratic-voting constituencies like African Americans and students.
“I just can’t believe it,” said Applewhite, in a statement released by the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous.”
Earlier this month, Lean Forward's Evan Puschak and Alex P. Kellogg traveled to Pennsylvania and asked residents for their take on the law.
Leave a Comment:
Judges don't like democracy. This new law should have been thrown out. It's antidemocratic. And anticonstitucional.
In the United States, the law, has little to do with logic.
This law is a clearly a travesty and this judge is obviously a conservative hack. The 1965 Voting Rights act says clearly that no poll taxes or versions of poll taxes or other measures may be implemented by states to impede a citizen's right to' vote regardless of race, gender, or ethnic background etc. The documents that are required for this Pennsylvania voter ID law are clearly a poll tax. States are not supposed to make a hassle out of voting they are supposed to make voting simpler, easier, and more convenient for all citizens. This Pennsylvania law clearly is unconstitutional and violates the 1965 Voting Rights act. Seniors, college students, and minorities or other people who live in the inner city often do not have cars or drivers licenses. Requiring these groups of people on fixed incomes or who are working poor to get an ID or the documents for an ID such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, or other documents are a costly hassle for people without cars or who do not drive. When are these working class people supposed to get a day off to go get these documents? Then the Pennsylvania offices that get these documents have limited office hours. Many of these people will be disenfranchised from voting. What I want to know is where is the Department of Justice on this one? We need to remember voting is a right for all Americans and negotiating away your civil rights is always a losing proposition for individuals and our democracy.
I don't know about other states, but when you register in AZ you get a voter registration card with your name on it. Isn't this a form of government ID? One would think that if your name is on the voter registration list(s) you have voted in the past with no problem and should be continued to be allowed to vote. Most workers have social security cards, would that be sufficient or would you also need to prove via some other document that you are the person whose name is on the card? Students have school IDs; are these sufficient to meet the condition of a government issued document? The schools are county government institutions.
To me, those states that are requiring all voters to have government issued IDs should provide a way and means for those who don't have such ID to obtain one. I agree with Rex in MN that the Department of Justice needs to step in and step in soon. These laws are "protecting" nothing. Voter fraud is not a major threat to our democracy.
LEAN FORWARD is really starting to anger me. Most articles posted here show a handful of comments at best. So much for public discourse. Come on folks. Get your act together!