Pennsylvania Judge Blocks Voter ID Law

 

Your right to commit voter fraud is alive and well in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson announced today that he was enjoining enforcement of Pennsylvania’s voter identification law, known as Act 18. Unless that ruling is overturned before November 6, election workers will not be able to stop anyone from voting for lack of identification (they can still ask for identification, but you can ignore the request and belly up to the voting booth).

In reality, though, this ruling doesn’t touch the merits of the law. Judge Simpson’s hand was forced by a state supreme court order that he had to block the law unless he was satisfied that not a single eligible voter would be barred from voting for lack of identification. Thus, Judge Simpson mechanically held that he could not guarantee “that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election.” Since it’s a dead certainty that “community organizers” will collude to manufacture cases of “disenfranchisement,” the judge had little choice.

On the merits of this case, the last word is still Judge Simpson’s August ruling in which he refused to enjoin the law, finding the plaintiffs did not have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim. That is surely correct. The Supreme Court previously upheld Indiana’s voter ID requirement in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld that state’s law as well.

As ever when discussing voter ID laws, I feel that I have gone to the other side of the looking glass. How can anyone seriously contend that a voter ID requirement puts an “undue burden” on voting rights?  Act 18, in particular, is a very permissive law. It allows voters to use any photo ID issued by any federal, state, or municipal agency — even a state university ID. And if a voter shows up without an ID, he or she can still cast a provisional ballot, which will count – provided the voter can produce identification within 6 days.  

Ultimately, the law should be upheld, but that will take place long after the November election.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BarbaraKidder

    Our election will stand or fall on the fall-out from this decision.

    Secretaries of State will not stand up to voter fraud when they know that the courts will continually  side with the ‘Democrat fraud machine’.

    The voting public has grown weary of the courts deciding the outcome of  our national elections, and so Obama will steal his re-election.

    It is my opinion that the Obama team are spending as much time on this ‘aspect’ of the campaign as they are on the debates!

    We are screwed!

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @

    I’m sorry, I refuse to join the Eeyore ranks on this.  I agree, that it’s a travesty but…

    I’ll go on record here:  Romney will take Pennsylvania anyway.

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Contributor
    @AdamFreedman
    Keith Preston: I’m sorry, I refuse to join the Eeyore ranks on this.  I agree, that it’s a travesty but…

    I’ll go on record here:  Romney will take Pennsylvania anyway. · 17 minutes ago

    I hope you’re right!   In any event, I’m not swayed by the partisan impact (or lack thereof).  Really, what floors me is the cynical and meritless arguments deployed against voter ID laws.  And the PA Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds by creating an unworkable test.  It is up to the legislature to weigh the risk of voter fraud vs. “disenfranchisement.”  The legislature made its decision.

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @Misthiocracy

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the judge merely say that it was unfair to impose a voter I.D. requirement five months before the election, because it would result in lots of eligible voters being turned away at the polls because they didn’t know about the requirement, and that the voter I.D. requirement can go ahead for the NEXT election?

    That’s what I’d heard, and it actually sounds kinda reasonable to me, if true.

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @VanceRichards

    If they are not going to require photo ID, couldn’t they at least ask for your voter registration card? Any type of check would be better than none.

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Douglas

    Hans Von Spakowsky says it’s a Pyrrhic victory for the liberals. Regardless, I’m sick and tired of these un-elected people lording over us.

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @SpinozaCarWash

    Whether state courts uphold, enjoin, or invalidate these laws is beside the point.  For even if the challengers lose, and citizens must show proof of ID at the polls, they will have ammunition to challenge the electoral results on November 7.  Any wonder why Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida have earned such strict scrutiny from the Left and its press apparatchiks? 

    Call me cynical…

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Devereaux

    ?So do we get to sue the government when TSA demands a gov’t ID because we are being denied the right to move about the nation as we wish.

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JohnMurdoch

    A friend–and local Obama campaign official–is ecstatic about this. (He’s also a recently-graduated lawyer.)

    This permits a creative form of vote fraud to occur: register out-of-state students (especially from “safe” states like New York) to vote in Pennsylvania. Have them vote here (and if they vote absentee in New York too, who’d ever know?), and help take Pennsylvania for Obama.

    The Pa. Voter ID law has a gaping hole in it–if you have a student ID with a photo and an expiration date, that’s good enough to vote. So every kid from New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc., at Lehigh, Lafayette, Penn, Drexel, etc. can register to vote in Pennsylvania–even though they’re not legally residents. 

    Does this happen? Yes–Daughter[2] signed what she thought was an innocuous petition while a student at UConn. Turns out it was a voter registration form–registering her to vote from her dorm. She was legally registered to vote in two states–and the Democrat activist who perpetrated this assured her it was “perfectly all right–everybody votes in as many states as they can!”

    • #9
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BarbaraKidder
    Gouverneur Morris: Whether state courts uphold, enjoin, or invalidate these laws is beside the point.  For even if the challengers lose, and citizens must show proof of ID at the polls, they will have ammunition to challenge the electoral results on November 7.  Any wonder why Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida have earned such strict scrutiny from the Left and its press apparatchiks? 

    Call me cynical… · 2 minutes ago

    It seems as though all this erudite, political analysis that we engage in so earnestly  on Ricochet is much akin to spending countless hours trying to figure out the rate of evaporation from a bucket half-full of water, whilst ignoring the holes in the bottom of said bucket!

    Apart from  voter registration procedures and  tabulation, which is stacked in favor of the incumbent, we have most of the press and television commentary, many of the courts, nearly half the population receiving monthly government payments, thousands of illegal immigrants poised to vote, an increasingly dumb population (as a result of our public school system) and public apathy to overcome!

    We are screwed!

    • #10

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.