Pennsylvania judge upholds law that could ban almost half of Philadelphia from voting

Get short URL

Published time: August 15, 2012 16:58
Edited time: August 15, 2012 20:58

Trends

US Election 2012

Tags

Election, Law, Scandal, USA

A Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of upholding the state’s new voter identification law, which may cause many minorities and college students to be ineligible to vote in the presidential election – even if they registered.

Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson ruled against granting an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Supporters claim the strict ID law helps prevent voter fraud and keeps non-citizens from voting, but it also keeps eligible citizens without an adequate ID from casting their ballots.

In a 70-page opinion, the judge wrote that opponents of the new law “did not establish … that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable.”

But last month, the Philadelphia City Paper found that 1,636,168 of the state’s voters might not have valid IDs to partake in the election, and almost half of Philadelphia voters might be banned from voting.

The new law requires voters, whether they have registered or not, to show IDs issued by the state’s Department of Transportation.

Other forms of ID, including federal, student IDs, and expired licenses, would be considered insufficient. Previously accepted forms of identity verification, such as utility bills or non-photo ID cards, will also be invalid at polling sites.

But in Pennsylvania, which is likely to be a key deciding state in the upcoming presidential election, leaving out a large chunk of the minority and college-aged population could severely affect the turnout.

Even though supporters of the law argue the benefits of securing each voter’s identity, court records show that not a single vote fraud case has been prosecuted or investigated in Pennsylvania before the new law went into effect. Election fraud played little role in the court case, with government lawyers acknowledging that they are “not aware of any incidents of in-person voter fraud.” But the judge’s ruling was influenced by lawmakers properly following the procedures of making legislation.

The American Civil Liberties Union is expected to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court.

“Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law,” Witold Walczak, legal director of the state’s ACLU chapter, said in a statement.

While there are other ways for voters with currently ineligible IDs to partake in the election – including using provisional ballots, absentee ballots, and requesting a proper ID card before November – many Pennsylvania citizens do not know about the new law.

Unless the law is appealed and ruled against by the State Supreme Court, the new law could severely affect the elections by leaving out those without proper identification.

Many US citizens may find themselves rejected at polling booths this November.

Comments (21)

Renae 16.08.2012 17:36

If the election is close and Romney wins through shady means like a Federal Supreme Court decision, a sudden drop in numbers in predominately minority and poor voting precincts, or people report not being able to vote in a sufficient number which otherwise would have put Obama over the top, the Democrats SHOULD reject the election outcome. I hate theObama presidency, but I hate disenfranchisement even more. But, knowing the cowardly Democrats, they'll accept the fraud just as they did in 2000.

Undo

Renae 16.08.2012 17:22

Manchurian wrote in #6
Almost every country with a demo gov requires voters to show ID, so you can show that you only voted once and fruad cannot happen. I didn't think the US didn't need to show ID but they need to follow suit because it is an obvious fault if you want a fair debate. The states do give you a Voter I.D. card; it just has no photo. Also, when you register, you have to provide proof of citizenship. At my precinct, you can't vote until you are found in our master book, and you have to sign your name. If you vote there but are registered somewhere else, your vote does not count. Yaddayaddayadda. All these ignorant people who know nothing of the process need to go bone up on a few facts about elections held in the states of the US.
In fact, the MS State Legislature failed to notify potential CANDIDATES of a change in the date of when their candidacy forms had to be submitted, thus causing some candidates to actually miss the deadline. And this, friends, from the geniuses who run our STATE and must have the appropriate degrees to get elected in the first place!

Undo

Renae 16.08.2012 17:10

SNAFU (unregistered) wrote in #8
@SJ:
I t's absurd to say there's no fraud if the means of detecting that fraud are not used. The fact that the ACLU is trying to prepare the public for a huge drop in votes submitted is suggesting that the level of fraud is very high, and the actual legal votes with be much lower.
It is absurd to say that there is fraud amongst VOTERS. When it does happen, it usually involves local politics. There have been NO voter fraud suffiecient enough to change an entire Presidential election. Those who tried to vote but who were not eligible were prisoners who had served their time and were released. Republicans have been at this issue for over a decade, when in fact the only 'fraud' that seems to have occurred in US elections have involved the SECRETARY OF STATE in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Both were REPUBLICANS.

This is a poll tax, nothing more, nothing less and therefore is illegal under US ;aw. And it is not the first time such laws have existed in US to disenfranchise certain minority populations (most notably in the South). Pay attention to the article! People who had previously voted WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE--EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN VOTING FOR DECADES. These are ELIGIBLE voters. The Republicans stripped overseas veterans of their voting rights in Florida in 2000, and they were surely eligible!

Undo

View all comments (21)