Voter-ID ruling ignores law's consequences
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson's refusal to stop Pennsylvania from potentially denying hundreds of thousands of voters their constitutional right to cast a ballot is disturbing.
Voter-ID ruling ignores law's consequences
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson’s refusal to stop Pennsylvania from potentially denying hundreds of thousands of voters their constitutional right to cast a ballot is disturbing.
Simpson’s ruling Wednesday validating the state’s new voter-ID law is steeped in legal precedents, but the past rulings he cites appear to be just as ideologically based.
Allegations that the ID law is a ploy to suppress the minority vote in the upcoming presidential election have been bolstered by the unguarded statements of a top Republican legislator. House Speaker Mike Turzai (R., Allegheny) said the law “is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
But Simpson’s opinion seems to say that comment doesn’t matter. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in favor of Indiana’s voter-ID law, which he said concluded that “even if partisan considerations played a significant role in the decision to enact the statute, the valid neutral justifications advanced by the state in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process” warranted the law.
In other words, the ends justify the means, even if the means take away people’s right to vote.
Turzai had the gall to issue a statement Wednesday hailing the ruling. “The integrity of each and every valid vote was upheld today,” he said. “Qualified voters will have their votes counted.”
Trial testimony showed the state was ill-prepared to ensure the voting rights of its 8.3 million registered voters, many of whom will likely be barred from voting because they lack the right ID.
Simpson said he had faith that the state could inform voters of the new rules. But he did not seem to understand that, even if they know what the law requires, too many voters may not be able to get a qualified ID.
The most common acceptable form of identification is a driver’s license or a non-driving ID issued by the state Department of Transportation. But by the state’s own calculations, 758,000 people lack those documents.
Simpson, who became a Republican after losing the Democratic nomination in a 1989 judicial race, was likely under tremendous pressure from fellow Republicans. True or not, many will believe his ruling reflects GOP ideology.
Plaintiffs have vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. But with Republican Justice Joan Orie Melvin suspended pending her trial on misuse-of-office charges, the court is split, with three Democrats and three Republicans. A deadlock means Simpson’s awful decision stands.
If it does, Pennsylvania will step backward in time to an era when the vote was not guaranteed to everyone. Simpson downplayed that possibility, saying the voter-ID law doesn’t specifically mention “any class or group,” so “its provisions are neutral and nondiscriminatory.”
The judge must have forgotten that poll-tax laws didn’t specify black people, but they were written to keep African Americans from voting. And poor white people were disfranchised as well.
who wrote this and did he or she type it with a straight face? Just get an ID! Get rid of the Liberal ideologists running this paper and watch your subscriptions rise.— Mags37- Romney made a major advertisement purchase in PA two days ago.
Apparently Romney had advance notice that poor and oly voters will be disfranchised in PA.— Seed - It was public knowledge that the state of PA would provide these IDs for free when the law took effect, all that was needed was a Social Security card (you know, that thing you need when you sign up for DSS and Medicare/Medicaid benefits).
— centard - As simple as a John Wayne movie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html— Cuddles - #1 turzai's comments were not part of the trial record; thus the judge could rightly take no notice of them
#2 there is nothing unconstitutional about taking maximum partisan advantage and discriminating against democrats (and I'm glad they did). Ever hear of gerrymandering? The democrats in Ill. had no qualms about shafting Republicans there - Of course this is not the case. The law requires more than a SS card. And this person thinks he knows the law. — Neil Mittelman
- A constitutional lesson on why the Judge correctly ruled PA Voter ID law!!!
Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both Federal and state law. Only US citizens can vote, which is governed by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment, each state is given CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION to establish qualifications for voting within its own jurisdiction.
Three constitutional amendments extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: Race (15th), Sex (19th), Age 18 (26th). The "right to vote" in these amendments cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, States cannot specifically create laws that deny voters based upon race, sex, or anyone 18 and over. However, states may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. They may prohibit convicted felons from voting. And they may be able to require voters to prove who they are with Photo IDs.
Anyone doubting this should read the SCOTUS decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007).— DrBID - "was likely under tremendous pressure from fellow Republicans." A baseless, speculative and irresponsible statement by the Inky without any factual support.— CD75
- Fact is there IS NO voter fraud based on needing an ID. There are so few cases even Repugs can not find true ones. This is to make it hard for the poor, 65 year old set in her ways to vote. She is less likely to get an ID and then go vote. There is NO NEED for this law but to make it harder for likely Dems to vote. Funny how Repugs hold onto the Constitution about guns...where in the Constitution does it mention voter IDs??? — JonKap
- Simpson, rhymes with Scalia. Both are partisan clowns hiding behind a dark robe.— bobcitydoc
- Yes, as opposed to Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg, who all consistently vote with the liberal block. Give me a break. — jfar86
- I don't get it. Who is being "kept from voting"? The law was passed months ago. Even if you didn't get an ID, you still have a few months to get one. Stop all the whining already.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- This comment has been deleted. — CornerPretzelGuy
- The DNC has announced that all it's delegates will require an ID to enter it's convention and vote when they rubber stamp Obama's nomination this Fall. In a statement they said each vote was too important to leave it without proof to verify the delegate. Guess they know what's important and right to avoid fraud! — cb54
