Tweet
With Wisconsin’s voter ID law tied up in court, and Indiana trending in the Republican direction after a 2008 Obama victory, the only state which will have a strong voice in the Presidential election that has a voter ID law on the books is Pennsylvania. There, at least 750,000 voters currently don’t have the necessary identification to cast their ballot in November, and a new study claims the number is actually 1.4 million. The ACLU of Pennsylvania, who is suing the state over the law, notes in their study that the lack of ID is higher for female voters, Latinos, the elderly, the poor, and those without a high school diploma. Draw your own conclusions about who benefits from that.
The ACLU of PA suit began today, and the state made an amazing acknowledgement – they admitted that they have never prosecuted or even investigated a case of voter fraud in the commonwealth.
The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”
Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”
This is incredible. You have the state of Pennsylvania defending in court a solution to a problem that they acknowledge from the start does not exist. The state was also the source of the figure of 750,000 eligible voters without an ID. And it won’t be difficult for the ACLU of PA to establish that obtaining voter ID at this late stage represents a significant burden on a vulnerable – and historically disenfranchised – population.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. This is different from their Voting Rights Act Section 5 responsibilities, as Pennsylvania is not a designated state for pre-clearance of voting rights laws. But under Section 2, DoJ can review any “voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in a split decision back in 2008, but the facts may be clearer in this case, especially with Pennsylvania’s admission about voter fraud.
If the Pennsylvania law is upheld, the political dynamic in the state will be completely upended, and massive resources put into getting IDs for eligible voters. But this can only go so far, and suppression is sure to follow at some level. So this lawsuit definitely bears watching.
17 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I understand the intention of the statement, but aren’t some of those listed strong members of the t-party?
“Fighting” the specter of voter fraud shows the courage of the law makers in protecting the “constituency” (we know who that is thought to be) against the depredations of “those” people (again, there is no doubt of who that is). But could the law makers be reducing their own supporters?
There is much better evidence to support the banning of the GOP in PA.
I would just love to see some democratic state legislators take the plunge. Popcorn sales would peak.
Since there is scant evidence of voter fraud given the stats, voter ID’s laws lack a rational basis and the intent is to again usurp established law under the color of state law.
This is the same tact used by Congress to make hemp illegal. While asserting that black men who smoke pot rape white woman, was the mantra, it was unsupported by evidence. To bad Congress ignored the ample evidence that drunken POS come home, beat and raped wife, then go after their own kids. Congress, charged with drafting law is fucking retarded!!!!!!!
How about this for a compromise, set up a DMV style camera at the voting place and issue a voters “picture ID” on the spot. Problem solved for both sides.
So since they are mostly Latino, poor, and women they don’t have to follow the same registration process that those who are able to legally vote in the state had to follow?
Voter ID conversations sure bring out the most moronic trolls…
Tom corbert our Governor claimed 99% of Pa voters already had a photo ID.The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”
Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”
He wouldn’t lie he’s the governor.
When tommy was Attorney General he didn’t prosecute or uncover ANY voter fraud
I recall a surrogate for Romney in PA – might have been the state GOP chair – saying explicitly that this law would deliver the state for his candidate. Can we all call this what it is now?
The whole voter ID thing is just another glaring example of GOP projection. They the ones with FRAUD on their minds. They get away with this shit because they own the refs.
Wow! Talk about a zero observance policy.
I think the PA assembly/house majority leader said that.
If there were actual evidence of fraud, I might rethink my opposition to these types of laws. But PA just did this because they could and because it would help them politically; preventing fraud (even fraud imagined entirely in their own minds) had nothing to do with the enactment of this law.
How about this: no voter ID law. A much more evidentially supported solution.
If they really wanted to crack down on any possibility of fraud, one good way to do it is to require everyone to WALK to their voting station. No driving.
After all, people can drive in from New Jersey or Maryland and “pretend” to be a Pennsylvania voter.
Would this impose a burden in the Republican suburbs or rural areas? Let’s not even ask that question. It’s about cutting down on the possibilites, however scant, for fraud . . .
As a former PA resident I feel free to say that Pennsylvania sucks. Rendell turned out to be completely in the pocket of the gambling industry. Not to mention, Rendell privatized half the Interstate highway mileage in the state. And he was the Democrat. And now he’s posing on cable teevee as a big liberal. Makes me puke.
The above is true regardless of which governor signed the stupid voter ID law.
Itrs well established that these ID laws suppress likely Democratic Voters at a much higher percantage. Thats why republicans push them. Of course some of the votes suppressed will be republican but if it wast a net gain fro republicans, they wuldnt push these laws so vigorously. They also have the secret, tacit support of conservative democrats and independents for a variety of reasons. I think these laws are past their prime usefulness…the democratic party is no longer a “Left” party, (to the minor extent that it ever was) and the interests that develop these kids of ideas for their benefit are going to be fully served no matter which party is elected. Must just come down to fighting over the spoils and a natural, historic republican hatred of Democracy in general.
Two Points about your comment..
1) You are implying that “Latino, poor, and women” are not “those who are able to legally vote in the state”. We’ll, you’re actually stating that.
2) Those “Latino, poor, and women” [don't forget Students] were able “to follow the same registration process” as those other non-latino, non-poor, non-women have been using up until this law was passed.
two points you don’t seem to understand..
1) there are at least 750,000 people who are able to vote in the state who do not currently have sufficient ID to vote. This is the estimate provided by the State themselves. These people are, right now, disenfranchised. They knowingly disqualified 750,000 people on the basis that this would be need to prevent a problem that they knew did not exist. Is that rational, or even legal? If it is not to prevent in-person voter fraud.. which the State has said is not a problem, than why did they do it? How did this happen to become a unified Republican effort that just happens to disproportionately have a negative affect on likely Democratic voters?
2) The right likes to pretend there is no downside to voter ID laws. It appears to me, from what I’ve seen, that not all states have waved fees for the required IDs making this a poll tax. Even states who have waved fees for voters have instructed their DMV workers to not mention that State IDs were now free for those who need them to vote [Wisconsin did this].
Even those who can afford a state ID, there are Still barriers for many to get that ID. I don’t know about the distribution of DMV in PA but in Texas, some residents live over 100 miles from the nearest DMV.. and these are people who don’t currently have a drivers license.
There have also already been cases where people who have legally voted for decades are now unable to vote because they’re so old that they either have to pay a significant amount for all the documentation [archived birth certs.. etc..] to even get a state ID or they’re simply unable to provide the documents required. In some cases, these 80, 90, or more year old documents don’t even exist in municipal archives anymore. Obvious example, untold paper records were destroyed in Katrina. One of the people affected by this is currently the plaintiff in a lawsuit against her State’s voter ID law because she can’t now vote for the first time in something like 50 years.
Of those who wouldn’t be unduly imposed upon by the new restrictions.. how many are aware that they now need to present a photo ID to vote?
BTW.. how many states make it reasonably easy for the homeless to acquire a state ID? In my state I need some combination of another state ID, birth cert, and some other proof of residency.. typically utility bills in my name. If if a homeless person has enough documentation (at a minimum a copy of their birth certificate), how many states allow the issuance of a State ID with out a permanent residence?
Voting is a fundamental right guaranteed to us in the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to abridge the right to vote of average citizens short of a Constitutional Amendment is prima facie unconstitutional. Like the right to bear arms, the courts have given some latitude toward limiting rights to those considered outside normal society [criminals] but those are outliers. To have the slightest chance of arguing for the legality of these laws when they affect all citizens, the states must both prove that there is a real reason to risk revoking this fundamental right and they’ll need to prove that they’ve removed the barriers that they’re currently putting in place.
In the example of the woman above who won’t be able to vote.. can you justify a law that revokes her fundamental Constitutional right to vote.. even just that one women.. if the State is not able to produce even a single instance of in-person voter fraud that her disenfranchisement is supposed to prevent? The PA State’s case is truly remarkable because they’re not only unable to identity a single case of voter fraud, they don’t even claim that it exists but hasn’t yet been discovered.
When PA and the other states are prepared to issue a valid State ID to all eligible voters, regardless of the current paperwork restrictions, regardless of their ability to get to a DMV or similar location.. even if it means going door to door with a ID card camera and printer.. then come back and tell us about implementing VoterID laws.
It was Benjamin Franklin who echoed a position held for centuries [back to at least Genesis 18(23-32), that "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”
That’s a cornerstone of the American judicial system. It’s what our founders intended when they crafted our adverserial criminal system where there is presumption of innocence, to the disadvantage of the State [prosecution].
This principal is every bit as relevant here. It’s better to allow 100 fraudulent votes to be cast than to allow one citizen to be denied their rightful vote. Any solution to the problem of in-person Voter fraud [which in reality isn't even a problem as admitted by PA and other State's Attorney] Must not disenfranchise legal voters.. the “innocent Person”.
Why does the Republican Party hate our founders?
Cool.
You can vote on your way into work with your non-picture Voter ID card and vote for your spouse on the way home with theirs. Everyones vote gets counted fair and square.