Pennsylvania voter ID law back in court: Can it be enforced?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the voter ID law, but challengers are asking whether enforcing it will disenfranchise a large number of voters in the state.

Pennsylvania’s photo ID law returned to state court on Monday, this time for a trial on whether the new measure can be enforced by state officials without disenfranchising a significant number of voters in the state.

Prior to the presidential election last fall, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID law but raised questions about whether certain voters might find it difficult to obtain the required government-issued ID in time to vote.

The courts blocked strict enforcement of the law until after the November presidential election. The injunction was later extended to include Pennsylvania’s May 21 primary.

Now the law is once again under review. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley is conducting a two-week trial in Harrisburg, Pa., to examine whether the law can now take full effect or should continue to be blocked – or struck down entirely.

A lawyer for those challenging the law told the court that the new requirement threatened to make voting a privilege rather than a right, according to the Associated Press.

In response, a lawyer for the state said the photo ID requirement was not unreasonably burdensome.

The voter ID law, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in March 2012, requires all voters to present government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot in Pennsylvania.

If the law is upheld, Pennsylvania would become one of 15 states that have passed laws requiring would-be voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot.

A number of voting rights and civil liberties groups challenged the state statute in a lawsuit filed last year, arguing that its burdens would fall disproportionately on the elderly, the poor, and minorities.

Those challenging the law, including the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, argue that the photo ID requirement will lead to the disenfranchisement of “at least tens of thousands of voters.”

“The gap between the number of people with IDs that can be used to vote and registered voters remains unconstitutionally and unconscionably large,” their pre-trial brief says.

Citing state statistics, they estimate that 300,000 to 400,000 registered Pennsylvania voters lack the type of ID required to vote under the photo ID law.

Since the lawsuit and resulting controversy last year, the state promised to issue a free ID to anyone needing it to vote. But only 16,700 such free IDs have been issued.

“By any measure that leaves tens of thousands – and likely hundreds of thousands – of voters without identification,” the challengers’ brief says. “There is no basis to believe that the gap will ever be closed.”

Critics of the law maintain that it was an attempt by Republican lawmakers to suppress votes among the poor as well as racial and ethnic minorities, constituencies that generally vote for Democrats.

Republicans counter that the voter ID law is not an extraordinary burden for potential voters and that it is justified as a safeguard against voting fraud.

The state’s brief in defense of the statute notes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID law last year.

The only remaining issue is how the law can be implemented consistent with legal and constitutional requirements, the brief says.

The state is providing free voter ID to any registered voter facing a special burden under the new law, said Senior Deputy Attorney General Timothy Keating in the state’s brief.

The ID law does not violate the state constitution’s requirement of free and fair elections, he said, because the requirement applies to all voters equally. The fact that some voters may be more inconvenienced than others in obtaining the proper ID does not render the process unequal, he wrote.

“Disenfranchisement – the wrong that is sought to be avoided – results from systematic and insurmountable impediments to exercising the right to vote,” Mr. Keating said, not from mere inconvenience.

Keating added that five of the seven original plaintiffs in the case last year have been removed from the litigation because they have be able to obtain valid photo identification despite their earlier complaints.

The challengers insist the problem is still pervasive.

“The photo ID law imposes a new requirement that hundreds of thousands cannot meet at all, or can meet only with severe burden,” Washington Lawyer Michael Rubin said in a statement before the trial.

“The law violates the right to vote and cannot stand,” he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.