Clear sky
Clear sky
51.8 °F
September 16, 2014
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search Login
news

PA judge partially blocks voter ID law


Witold J. Walczak, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, one of three groups challenging the las, said the groups are having conversations with the state, and if the education campaign continues without changes, "we may be back in court."

David Gersch, of the Washington-based law firm Arnold and Porter, said this ruling does not settle the matter of whether or not the lawsuit is constitutional, but only the question of whether it will be implemented in the election in November.

Gersch said the constitutional questions surrounding the law, such as whether it puts undo burdens on the elderly and other groups in trying to obtain a photo ID, will be answered in the ongoing litigation process, for which another court session is scheduled for December.

However, Governor Tom Corbett said the judge did uphold the constitutionality of the law. He and Secretary of State Carol Aichele issued a statement saying, "We are pleased with Judge Simpson’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the
voter ID law. While we believe we have made it possible for every registered voter who needs voter identification to obtain one, we’ll continue our efforts for the next election and all future elections, to make sure every registered
voter has the proper identification in an effort to preserve the integrity of our voting process in Pennsylvania.”

It is not yet clear if the state will appeal the judge’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

State Representative Mike Turzai, who championed the law, issued a statement saying, “Voter identification is about ensuring the integrity of our elections and preserving the principle of the ‘one person, one vote’ doctrine. When votes are diluted through fraud, the system starts to break down. Voter identification has always been about creating a level playing field where every Pennsylvanian’s vote represents an equal opportunity to have a voice in government.”

However, state lawyers who argued the case agreed to the stipulation that there is no evidence in Pennsylvania of any voter fraud of the sort the law was intended to prevent, and they also stipulated that they were not aware of any fraud in other states.