From: Portside
Rick Lyman
The
law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to
cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly,
disabled and low-income residents
January 18, 2014
A volunteer distributing checks to needy Pennsylvanians in October for the cost of a state ID. |
Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
In
a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down
Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved
photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court
confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across
the country.
The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the
law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to
cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly,
disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the
law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by
the facts.
“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” the judge wrote in his 103-page decision. “The voter ID law does not further this goal.”
In addition, Judge McGinley ruled, the state’s $5 million campaign to
explain the law had been full of misinformation that has never been
corrected. He also said that the free IDs that were supposed to be made
available to those without driver’s licenses or other approved photo
identification were difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain.
Opponents of voter IDs called the ruling a “devastating indictment” of the Pennsylvania law.
The case is now expected to go to the State Supreme Court. Attorney
General Kathleen Kane said in a statement Friday that she was awaiting
instructions from the governor about how to proceed.
James Schultz, the governor’s general counsel, said the state was
studying the ruling. “We continue to evaluate the opinion and will
shortly determine whether post-trial motions are appropriate,” he said.
It was also unclear whether, if there is an appeal, the high court would
be able to rule in time to allow the law to take effect for May’s
primary.
As in other states that have passed similar voter ID laws in recent
years, Pennsylvania’s law was spearheaded by Republican legislators and
signed by a Republican governor, in Pennsylvania’s case without any
Democratic legislative support. Judge McGinley is a Democrat.
Supporters of the law — which is intended to combat one type of
potential fraud, that of unqualified people trying to vote in person —
have said it is needed to make sure the person who casts the ballot is
the person who is registered to vote.
Opponents contend that such fraud is rare — in Pennsylvania’s case,
the state could not point to a single incident — and that the laws were
intended to suppress Democratic turnout, since those who do not possess a
state-approved photo ID are more likely to be in groups that tend to
vote Democratic.
“The type of problem that is addressed by voter ID laws is virtually
nonexistent, which does raise the question of why they are passing these
laws,” Witold Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania,
said after Friday’s ruling. “And the answer is that it is a voter
suppression tool.” MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment