13 key points on PA Court ruling upholding Voter ID law
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson this morning refused to issue a preliminary injunction to block the state's new Voter ID law, which will require voters to show state-approved identification at polling places during the Nov. 6 general election. Here are 13 key take-aways from the 68-page Simpson ruling:
13 key points on PA Court ruling upholding Voter ID law
Chris Brennan
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson this morning refused to issue a preliminary injunction to block the state's new Voter ID law, which will require voters to show state-approved identification at polling places during the Nov. 6 general election.
Here are 13 key take-aways from the 68-page Simpson ruling:
- Simpson describes the requirement to show state-approved identification to vote as a “minor change” to the state Election Code.
- He said any voter rejected for lack of an ID can still cast a provision ballot and then produce an approved ID within six days to have their vote counted.
- “Importantly,” Simpson said, the Voter ID law, “contains no references to any class or group. Rather, its provisions are neutral and nondiscriminatory and apply uniformly to all voters.”
- Simpson rejected a claim that voters could be harmed by being “erroneously charged a fee for a photo ID for voting.” They can get a refund later, he explained.
- Gov. Corbett and the Department of State initially said about 1 percent of voters did not have an approved state ID. The Department of State later said that number was closer to 9 percent. Simpson guesses the number is “somewhat more than 1 percent and significantly less than 9 percent,” Based on testimony of the Department of State’s director of policy. Simpson also said he rejected “attempts to inflate the numbers in various ways.”
- Simpson compared objections to the Voter ID law to a legal action taken in 2008 by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, which sought to curtail the voter registration efforts of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also known as ACORN. Simpson ruled in October 2008 that the Republican Party would not be able to prove that ACORN was engaged in voter fraud.
- Simpson, in the ACORN comparison, said he is convinced the Voter ID law “will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a non-partisan, even-handed manner.”
- Simpson said a Department of State plan for a special identification for voting, still being developed, will prevent voters from being disenfranchised.
- Simpson took into account the “alarm, concern and anxiety” shown by the state’s commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation of the impact a preliminary injunction on the Voter ID law would have on preparing for the Nov. 6 general election. “His demeanor tells the story,” Simpson wrote.
- Simpson cites an April 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting a constitutional challenge to a Voter ID law in Indiana.
- In citing that case, Simpson notes that Department of State here acknowledged having no proof of in-person voter fraud occurring in Pennsylvania. “Nevertheless…The United States Supreme Court upheld a nearly identical Indiana voter ID law despite the absence of any evidence of in-person voter fraud occurring in that state.”
- Simpson denounced “disturbing, tendentious statements by House Majority Leader Michael Turzai to a Republican Party gathering” – In June Turzai said the law would help former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney defeat President Obama in the presidential election – but declared that a legislator’s partisan interest in voting for a law does not make that law discriminatory. “Factually, I decline to infer that other members of the General Assembly shared the boastful views of Rep. Turzai without proof that other members were present at the time the statements were made,” Simpson wrote.
- Simpson wrote that the Voter ID law challengers “did an excellent job of ‘putting a face” to those burdened by the law but that he does not have the “luxury of deciding the issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses.”
Comments (12)
Comment removed.
Why is anyone surprised that this right-wing, rethug hack would rule in favor of the GOP? Control of all three branches of government by the republics has driven this state further into economic, environmental, and social decay.
Only by denying millions of PA citizens their right to vote can the GOP steal the election.— JeffJenk- Dispite what Turzai says, Romney will still lose in Pennsylvania.— BobSG
- i think the judge is limited by the law. it takes more than just a view that this legislation is wrong to overturn it (and the legislation is wrong), it takes proof that the law is unconstitutional. We can hope that the state supreme court decides differently, or at least grants a stay until after the election. The blame for this falls on legislators. I still think the best action would be for EVERYONE opposed to this law to go to pendot requesting the state id. The backlog would force the state to acknowledge they can't handle the demand in time for november. in the meantime, if you don't have ID , please request an absentee ballot!— doc al
- The U.S. Supreme Court based its upholding another stae's voter ID law in another challenge was based on the state having a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud, but even before the hearing began, the Commonwealth admitted that it had not such evidence. The Supreme Court also said that there was no evidence of obstacles to obtaining ID, but in this case, the plaintiffs did show that there were substantial obstacles. Those are two distinct issues of fact that distinguish this challenge from the previous one, that undermine the very argument on which the prior decision had been based, and where the Commonwealth either granted or didn't have any witnesses to challenge the plaintiffs' evidence. This was wholly political decision that the judge probably made before the hearing ever began.— Blanketman
- "Gov. Corbett and the Department of State initially said about 1 percent of voters did not have an approved state ID. The Department of State later said that number was closer to 9 percent. Simpson guesses the number is “somewhat more than 1 percent and significantly less than 9 percent,” Based on testimony of the Department of State’s director of policy. "
So when the Dept. of State says "closer to 9 percent", Judge Simpson heard "significantly less than 9 percent"? Methinks Judge Simpson needs a hearing test.
— Jeany - Disappointing. The ruling reads like the Corbett Administration's brief. He bought every single Republican talking point. Completely disregarding the fact that Pennsylvania's law is MUCH more restrictive than Indiana's, and apparently disregarding the strong evidence that hundreds of thousands -- and maybe close to a million - Pennsylvanians may be unable to vote in November because of this ruling. What a thing to go down in history for....— tomB
- He seemed to say he would have been persuadable on the political nature of the law had any more been introduced. He also seemed clear that if these issues of a burden falling on a particular group (no one calls them non-drivers!)is evident AFTER the law is in effect, that he may invalidate the law 'as applied'— TomH1
- Whining does not a law break. No one is denied the opportunity to vote by this law. Lazy does not constitute an undue burden on one's civil rights. Please stop lumping the elderly in this group...never met an old folk who wouldn't jump at the chance to stand in line and talk a stranger's ear off.— 2ndNlong
1) Student ID once was legal. Should of been introduced on a primary.
2) Filling out provisional ballots in crowded urban areas will lead to delays.
3) There is a bias against urban populations where the elderly and young congregate.
4) There is no refund for Florida 2000's use of ID.
5) Any estimate of numbers are more than the 2010 MN Senate race and the 2000 FL President race.
6) And still there is no proof of voter fraud, only new restrictions on grandmom's maiden name.
7) The mis-characterization of ACORN highlights the mis-characterization of urban (NOT Black) Pennsylvania.
8) "Still being developed" highlights that 7 months is not enough time.
9) The alarm, concern and anxiety of Tia Sutter tells the whole story.
10) There are always voting cases in front of SCOTUS as people always try to limit voting.
11) This creates a bad precedent as Democrats, returning to power, will demand yearly registration in front of a notary in Rural counties
12) Other members were present at the Turzai Republican meeting.
13) This is not about sympathy this is about uniform justice and enforcement between Rural and Urban (NOT Black) counties.
14) The Signature System works great.— Cuddles- Hey Cuddles...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAA
Need a tissue? ROFL!!!!— DrBID - Notice how this list deals only with the photo id and ignores the other major provisions? The ones dealing with improved polling place security, the establishment of state wide provisional balloting rules and practices, and the mandate that the counties MUST purge the dead, illegal, non-resident, and incarcerated voters from the rolls.
The Inky and the Democrats never mention those provisions, BUT the lawsuit is to block all of the law not just the ID portion. Wonder why?— Dutch-wayne
Popular Posts
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: