By Robert Barnes/The Washington Post
A Pennsylvania judge Tuesday ordered state officials not to enforce the commonwealth’s tough new voter ID law in the November election, a political victory for Democrats who said the law was an attempt to discourage support for President Obama in a battleground state.
Pennsylvania has occupied a particularly important spot in what has become a series of partisan skirmishes over new laws on who will be allowed to vote this fall and how those votes will be counted.
Now, five weeks before the election, voters around the country face new requirements when they go to the polls, and some will see more limited opportunities to vote before election day.
But those opposed to the changes have won key victories in the courts, where judges have been put in the position of balancing a state’s traditional right to make rules for the electoral process with a citizen’s fundamental right to vote.
A panel of federal judges blocked a new law in Texas, saying the state had not proved the changes would not disproportionately harm minorities. State judges in Wisconsin have stopped that state’s law. South Carolina’s law is still under federal judicial review, with little time for implementation even if it is approved.
Pennsylvania is emblematic of the partisan dynamic that has motivated the changes.
Like many other states, a resurgent Republican leadership elected in 2010 moved quickly to enact one of the toughest ID laws, which required specific forms of photo ID that many residents — the number is disputed — lack. Lawmakers and new Republican Gov. Tom Corbett said the changes were necessary to combat the threat of voter fraud and restore confidence in the integrity of elections.
Democrats and civil rights groups say there is almost no evidence of the kind of voter impersonation fraud that ID requirements would remedy. They alleged the real purpose was to suppress turnout of poor, urban and minority voters who are the most likely to lack photo IDs.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, who upheld the law when he first considered it this summer, ruled on Tuesday that state officials had not made enough progress in supplying photo IDs for those who lack them. He said it seemed likely that some otherwise qualified voters would be disenfranchised.
Simpson said elections officials may request voters show a photo ID but may not turn away qualified voters who had not been able to obtain them, or require the voters to cast a provisional ballot.
State officials said they had not made a final decision about whether to appeal Simpson’s ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But a joint statement from Corbett and his secretary of state sounded as if they were preparing to give up the fight to use the law in the coming election.
The Pennsylvania law drew particular attention because of its strictness--only certain types of ID were accepted, and critics said the process for securing them was unwieldy and for some, almost impossible.
The partisan bickering over the law ratcheted up this summer when a video surfaced of Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai bragging about the law at a meeting of GOP activists.
“Voter ID - which is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done,” he said.
The state is considered crucial to the campaign, although recent polls have shown Obama opening up a lead over Republican Mitt Romney.
Simpson, elected to the bench as a Republican, noted those remarks when he first considered the law this summer, but found the requirement was not unduly intrusive.
A voter ID requirement is a “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,” Simpson wrote.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, currently composed of three Democrats and three Republicans, agreed that the law might well be constitutional. But it told Simpson to gather more information about whether the state could actually meet its goal of providing IDs so that no voter was disenfranchised.
Simpson decided Tuesday the state could not. “I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time,” he wrote. “For this reason, I accept Petitioners’ argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.”
There will be additional hearings after the election to consider the larger question of the law’s constitutionality.
David Gersch, a Washington lawyer who represented the individuals and civil rights groups who challenged the law, called the decision “a big win” that could be reduced to a simple message: “you don’t need a photo ID to vote in November.”
His partner in the case, Witold Walczak of the Pennsylvania ACLU, said it is a message the state needs to now adopt. Its current voter education efforts are called “Show It,” and tell voters they must have an ID. He said that could lead to confusion on election day or even discourage turnout among those lacking the ID.
Ronald Rumen, a spokesman for Secretary of State Carol Aichele, said the state is looking at the current radio and TV campaign and is likely to make “tweaks” that would reflect Simpson’s decision that identification is no longer required.
Experience around the country has shown that how voter ID laws are written--and the exceptions provided for those without ID--are important. For instance, while the Obama administration opposed the laws in Texas and South Carolina, it approved laws in New Hampshire and Virginia. Virginia’s law closed a provision that had allowed residents to vote without showing identification but also expanded the types of ID accepted.
The legal wrangling in battleground states goes beyond voter ID laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is considering two challenges to Ohio laws, one limiting early voting and the other about the counting of provisional ballots. Groups in Florida are still fighting Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) efforts to scour the voting rolls for noncitizens; the groups say there is a threat that qualified voters will lose their rights in a hasty process so close to the election.Copyright © 2014 Paddock Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.