Tweet
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has returned the controversial voter ID law back to the Commonwealth Court for review in a move that could put an end to voter ID in the state for the year.
The initial reports claimed that the state Supreme Court threw out voter ID, but actually they just remanded it back to the Commonwealth court judge. The nub of the matter concerns the ability for Pennsylvania officials to get a valid ID in the hands of any eligible voter who wants one between now and the election. The number of eligible voters without proper ID under the law ranges as high as 750,000. The Supreme Court [PDF] said that “we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials” that they will be able to pull this off. The Court wants the Commonwealth judge to “consider whether the procedures being used for deployment” of the voter ID cards, which has changed a couple times over the past several months, meets with the Constitutional requirements of the state. If the Commonwealth judge believes there will potentially be voter disenfranchisement, under current rules, he should enjoin the law, the Supreme Court said. Here’s the meat of their ruling:
[T]he Law contemplates that the primary form of photo identification to be used by voters is a Department of Transportation (PennDOT) driver’s license or the non-driver equivalent provided under Section 1510(b) of the Vehicle Code. Furthermore, the Law specifically requires that – notwithstanding provisions of Section 1510(b) relating to the issuance and content of the cards – PennDOT shall issue them at no cost . . . . As such, the Law establishes a policy of liberal access to Section 1510(b) identification cards.
However, as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT – apparently for good reason – has refused to allow such liberal access. Instead, the Department continues to vet applicants for Section 1510(b) cards through an identification process that Commonwealth officials appear to acknowledge is a rigorous one. Generally, the process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal (or a document considered to be an equivalent), a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency. The reason why PennDOT will not implement the Law as written is that the Section 1510(b) driver’s license equivalent is a secure form of identification, which may be used, for example, to board commercial aircraft.
The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms.
So the state Supreme Court put a fairly high standard on the Commonwealth Court, that would suggest an enjoinment of the law, at least until after the election. Vacating the voter ID law would end any possibility of disenfranchisement through turning away voters for lack of ID. The state Supreme Court set the standard that access to ID cards must be extremely easy and generous in order for the law to go forward.
That’s pretty clearly not the case now. There are a limited amount of PennDOT offices available to administer ID cards, and 13 of them are only open once a week. Up until a couple days ago it took two trips to the PennDOT offices to get the ID. With many of the potentially disenfranchised voters elderly, disabled, not close to a PennDOT office and/or with no access to a vehicle clearly there’s a hardship here for the eligible voters, presumably enough to enjoin the law.
But that’s in the hands of the Commonwealth Court judge who already allowed this law to go forward. However, the guidelines handed down by the state Supreme Court for adjudicating this are much more restrictive.
We’re not all the way there yet, but this comes close to a big victory for voting rights activists. Think Progress has more.
UPDATE: Great point from Marcy Wheeler. The failure to get these voter ID laws passed points to the sharp public sector cutbacks we’ve seen in states like Pennsylvania, which in turn makes the provision of public services more difficult. People would get disenfranchised under the law because of the difficulty in obtaining ID. In a government not drowned in Grover Norquist’s bathtub, this would not be such an ordeal, and the law would presumably be able to go forward.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is so unfair. Now the Republican who said before cameras that their voter suppression would guarantee a Romney win is going to have to hold a press conference telling everybody the deals off. Bummer.
For any trolls out there that don’t remember here it is:
“Mike Turzai’s admission that Voter ID only serves the partisan interests of his party should be shocking, but unfortunately it isn’t. Democrats are focused on protecting Pennsylvanians’ rights to vote, and we are working hard to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote can vote this fall.”
So at what point do we require photo IDs to express political opinion? The attack on the right to vote is at the behest of corporate interests enabled by money and partisan political scum buggery, designed to protect business models which fail to provide value for dollars spent.
Remedy is required only based on “evidence of necessity” for such remedy, to preserve a supreme right. In the absence of such “evidence” to necessitate remedy, protecting a supreme right, proposed remedy is at best, suspect and likley a malignancy for democracy, voter suppression under the quise of voter protection.
This is as Jefferson and Madison feared, the undue influence of the “…monied interests, in the political process compromising constitutional checks and balances in the lust for endless profit?” The meddlesome Ariosto. The consummated quintessential corporate aristocrat and his limited liability corporate shells, usurping supreme law, while maintaining monopolies in commerce fleecing a nation at the expense of life and liberty.
Why doesn’t the Empire have the same requirement for its domestic voters as it does for its conqured countries, or did we run out of purple ink in the Middle East?