Voter ID ruling reaction: Dems applaud, GOP disappointed
Democrats applauded a ruling Tuesday morning by state Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, allowing voters to cast ballots in the Nov. 6 general election with or without state-approved identification. Republicans complained that the controversial Voter ID law was "common sense" and should be implemented immediately.
Voter ID ruling reaction: Dems applaud, GOP disappointed
Chris Brennan
Democrats applauded a ruling Tuesday morning by state Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, allowing voters to cast ballots in the Nov. 6 general election with or without state-approved identification. Republicans complained that the controversial Voter ID law was "common sense" and should be implemented immediately.
Simpson issued a narrow preliminary injunction for the Nov. 6 election -- and only that election -- to be a "soft run" for the new law, similar to how the April 24 primary election was conducted. Voters will be asked for identification at polling places but allowed to vote if they don't have it.
President Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania released this statement: "Today’s decision means one thing for Pennsylvanians: eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state."
Rob Gleason, chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, is pleased that the Voter ID legislation will be used in future elections but unhappy about Simpson's ruling.
"I am disappointed by today’s ruling to postpone the full implementation of a commonsense reform that helps protect the sanctity of our electoral process," a statement from Gleason read. "We shouldn’t have to wait for this commonsense reform to be enacted."
Simpson on Aug. 15 rejected a request for a preliminary injunction from Voter ID opponents, saying he believed the state could avoid disenfranchising voters by providing identification. The state Supreme Court on Sept. 18 told him to take another look, giving him Tuesday as a deadline.
Simpson, in Tuesday's ruling, said he found three problems. First, the Supreme Court was unsatisfied with Simpson's "predictive judgment" that the state would not disenfranchise voters. Second, with the general election five weeks away, Simpson was unsure if there was enough time for the state to produce identification for every voter who needs it. And third, "candid admissions" from state officials showed that new procedures produce unforeseen problems.
IF YOU SEE ANY REPUBLICAN SHOWING ANGER ABOUT THIS RULING, THEY'RE EXPOSING THEMSELVES AS COMPLICIT IN A CRIME. Since there was no fraud to begin with, the anger is all about getting caught, nothing more.— bogie1- Now Republicans all but call the President a Muslim Terrorist as he follows the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, blaming the Main Stream Media for hiding his handicaps.
How Christian of them.— Cuddles - IF YOU SEE ANY DEMOCRAT SHOWING GLEE ABOUT THIS RULING, THEY'RE EXPOSING THEMSELVES AS COMPLICIT IN A CRIME. The Democrat party knows it thrives on illegal votes, and they were desperate to keep those illegal votes - otherwise, their failed president may not get re-elected.
- Republicans spent 50 Million dollars for this legislation to "fix" something that wasn't broken in the first place. What a bunch of dopes!— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- I have been voting for forty years. I have never had to show my ID. This law is total garbage. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK FORM THESE IDIOTS. I am so happy.— cindy1956
- This country managed to survive for over 200 years without this law. I think we'll be ok.— 19147
- The republicans' weak argument is that we need ID's for everything, so why not voting. But we DO have ID's! It's called a SIGNATURE! It was scanned when even the poorest old immigrant person had to properly fill out all the registration paperwork. It's a great system that has successfully prevented fraud for decades. Liquor and gun stores, etc, don't have our signatures on file, THAT's why they need a photo ID, you morons.— bogie1
- Why the heck should I have to register to vote then? I should just show up at the polls. If libs are consistent, they'll fight to have voter registration overturned, right?— jmc
Comment removed.- Typical lib. Hurl an insult, but provide no argument.
Unfortunately, I am burdened with the need to have some consistency from one thought to the next.— jmc - Comment removed.
- I'm an independent who voted for obama in 2008 who continues to be amazed at why folks are so opposed to showing ID when you vote (so there no fraud going on in any big city...seriously???) These same clowns will glady show ID when buying a drink, a smoke, or any other purchase when a merchant requires it. You do realize this issue will only energize the pro-ID folks for the next election (face it, this one is over already!). Hillary will need those votes in 2016 so get your ID's now! No one will want to listen to you whine at that point.— Openyoureyesfolks
- Imagine Bill and Hillary with a pro-Democrat commercail on the last weekend before the election with the message that yes it is true, Democrats believe in nation building.
— Cuddles - Hey Open, your weak argument is that we need ID's for everything, so why not voting? But we DO have ID's! It's called a SIGNATURE! It was scanned when even the poorest old immigrant person had to properly fill out all the registration paperwork. It's a great system that has successfully prevented fraud for decades. Even republicans had to admit they've found no impersonation fraud. Liquor and gun stores, etc, don't have our signatures on file, THAT's why they need a photo ID, you moron.— bogie1
- The law as passed was not implemented with respect to providing photo ID cards. The fact that the law was not implementable as passed shows how poorly conceived it was to begin with. Why wasn't the law checked to see if it could implemented before it was voted on?— Seamus
Follow Chris on Twitter
David Gambacorta spent a small eternity writing about cops, drug dealers and serial killers. Now he’s writing about power and politics – which sometimes reminds him of the old crime beat. He joined the Daily News in 2005. And yes, he knows you’re not quite sure how to pronounce his last name. E-mail tips to gambacd@phillynews.com
Follow Dave on Twitter.
Jan Ransom, a native New Yorker, joined the Daily News in 2010 after graduating from Howard University. She has since written about the difficulty of filing police complaints, tax deadbeats and life after violent home invasions. She joined the Daily News City Hall Bureau in 2011 and has plunged headfirst into reporting on administration budget battles and City Council shenanigans. E-mail tips to ransomj@phillynews.com
Follow Jan on Twitter
Sean Collins Walsh is from Bucks County and went to Northwestern University. He joined the Daily News copy desk in 2012 and now covers the Nutter administration. Before that, he interned at papers including The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News and The Seattle Times. E-mail tips to walshSE@phillynews.com
Follow Sean on Twitter
