CONNECT
Pennsylvania is Just the Latest Ruling Upholding Voter ID Law
Pro Publica / News Analysis
Published: Friday 17 August 2012
“Lawsuits have continued to crop up challenging the laws, mostly on the grounds that they violate state constitutions.”
On Wednesday, in a closely watched case, a state judge in Pennsylvania declined to block the state’s controversial voter ID law from taking effect. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, registered voters in the state will be required to show acceptable photo ID during the general election in November.
There’s been a lot of attention on this lawsuit, given the closeness of the election and greater focus on voter ID laws, which critics say could disenfranchise voters who are likely to lack photo ID, often the poor, elderly, and minorities. (To catch up on this issue, check out our guide on everything you need to know about voter ID laws.)
Yesterday’s ruling has generated plenty of criticism and concern. But it’s far from the first time a judge has ruled on voter ID laws, a number of times in favor of them. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s strict voter ID law, saying in 2008 that it’s constitutional.
Lawsuits have continued to crop up challenging the laws, mostly on the grounds that they violate state constitutions. Meanwhile, Republican-led state legislatures are continuing to pass the laws.
To get a real sense of where things may be going, it’s helpful to look at the past. Here’s a rundown of state court decisions on voter ID laws:
Three rulings in favor of voter ID laws
- In July 2007, in an advisory opinion sought by the state House of Representatives, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that the state’s photo ID requirement was a “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction designed to preserve the purity of elections and to prevent abuses of the electoral franchise.” The court said there was no need for the legislature to prove voter fraud existed before taking “prophylactic action.” As part of the ruling, the court said the photo ID restrictions were not overly harsh. The opinion included two dissents.
- In June 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court sided with a lower court judge in dismissing a motion to toss out the state’s voter ID law. The court ruled that the law is a valid “election regulation” and held the burdens were not “sufficiently unreasonable.” In addition, the court frequently referenced the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which upheld Indiana’s voter ID law on federal constitutional grounds. The state Supreme Court’s decision included one dissent.
- In March 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling upholding the state’s voter ID law. It found the state’s photo ID requirement was a “minimal, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory restriction” and repeatedly cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision as persuasive authority. It also rejected the argument that Georgia’s Constitution afforded greater voting protections than the federal Constitution, arguing it was “coextensive” and that “we apply them as one.” There was one dissent.
Rulings against voter ID laws
- In October 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the state’s voter ID law for violating the state constitution. The court ruled that there was no compelling state interest to justify the burdens posed by the law. It pointed to the lack of any reported instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state and to the fact that the law was not tailored to prevent other types of voter fraud aside from impersonation. There was one dissenting vote.Missouri passed a photo ID law again in 2011, but it was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Earlier this year, a ballot proposal to amend the state Constitution for a photo ID requirement was rejected by a state judge and not revised before the legislature recessed.
- In March 2012, the first of two state judges in Wisconsin to rule on the law barred enforcement of the law. The judge warned of possible disenfranchisement of voters that could include “those struggling souls who, unlike the vast majority of Wisconsin voters, for whatever reason will lack the financial, physical, mental, or emotional resources” to comply with the law.In July, a separate state judge similarly blocked the law. The judge cited the time and cost of obtaining photo ID and the strong voting protections extended by the Wisconsin Constitution.Although the Wisconsin Attorney General filed an appeal of these two decisions to the state Supreme Court, it’s not likely the appeals will be considered before the November election.
- In Wednesday’s ruling out of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson referenced many of these past court rulings, particularly the ones that upheld voter ID laws. He also stressed the need for deference to the Pennsylvania legislature. Criticism of Pennsylvania’s law had intensified after the Republican majority leader of the state’s House had been quoted saying the voter ID law would benefit Republicans. Although the judge called the remark “disturbing,” he wrote that it didn’t change his reasoning.Pennsylvania’s photo ID requirement, the judge concluded, “is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”That doesn’t end things for Pennsylvania. The Justice Department has launched its own investigation into some states’ voter ID laws, including Pennsylvania’s.
Top Stories
By Tara Culp- Ressler
7 comments on "Pennsylvania is Just the Latest Ruling Upholding Voter ID Law"
August 20, 2012 12:15pm
Maybe we should out-flank these voter suppression forces. Let's advocate for a national citizenship card that would be valid in any state. After all, citizenship is the salient qualification for a voter. Most states have a database of births since early in the 20th century, and the government has citizenship records for foreign-born. Has anyone seen Karl Rove's birth certificate?
August 17, 2012 4:49pm
These laws should allow a sufficient roll-out period. It's blatantly clear why they were instituted now. Hell, the repugnant rep even said the law was to get romney the vote in PA. And the a-hole judge said it will be applied in anon-partisan manner? What a travesty.
August 17, 2012 3:36pm
want to participate in a national program to keep citizens (both voters and potential voters) informed of the number of votes involved in each election, nationwide. My reasons are as below:Unfortunately, if statistics are any indication, the majority of people elected to public office will be elected with far less than a majority of the eligible voters. Many (including mayors, commissioners, school board members, federal congressmen, and state offices will be elected with a frustrating low number of votes. A major challenge faced by U. S. Citizens is the need to participate in the electoral process. Too many of our "elected" officials get into office with as low as 5% of the eligible voters, many with 1 or 2% of the population of the districts involved. And, we call this "representative government?" I believe that this delinquency in voting is often by the design of clever politicians who benefit from a "low" turnout. It is also the result of ignorance by the voting
public of the dramatic consequences of failing to participate in the voting process. Should we feel a strong urgency to vote? Do we feel that our vote "counts?" Are we turned off of certain elections because we did not take the time to become familiar with the qualifications of the campaigners? Do we not vote because of numerous "excuses?' It isn't convenient. The weather is bad. The wait in line is tiring (some times by design). How many good reasons are there to discourage a person from voting? If you are a candidate and you have your voting block solidly behind you, does it make sense for you to try to dilute that voting block by getting new voters (who may well vote against you) to participate? The right to vote is enshrined. The dire consequences of NOT voting has no organized opposition. If voting in all elections is an obligation, which I think it is, there should be some method of ensuring that citizens participate in the election process. To me, a simple so
lution would be to require citizens to provide "Proof of Vote" in order to secure any type of license or permit authorized by law. I do not think it is too much to ask every citizen to proudly display his willingness to participate as a citizen by discharging his obligation to cast his vote in favor of whomever or whatever is the issue. To me, it is a dangerous precedent for citizens to stand idly by while almost anyone, of whatever belief or background, of whatever political or religious focus, can make the rules by which we live simply by obtaining (by whatever method is possible) a very small percentage of the eligible vote (or, even worse, an even smaller percentage of the population thus represented. To me, this is the greatest danger now being faced by U.S. citizens and is now reflected in almost every election across the country. There seems to be no alternative to this debacle other than to quickly find some way to allow for citizens to routinely show up at the vot
ing booth at each and every election. Being a citizen of the United States is not a "voluntary" choice. It is a privilege earned, not bestowed. Being a citizen is discharging the citizenship obligation to vote, regardless. D. J. Isn't it sad that 90 to 95 percent of the "uninterested and ill-informed" regularly stay at home? A republic by the people and for the people implies that the people will play a role in their future, that they have an obligation to themselves and to each other to actively participate in and strengthen the republic they have chosen through the voting booth. A republic that does not have active participation of its citizens (as a majority of eligible participants) can hardly be called a"republic." Active participation (at the voting booth) is a small price to pay for freedom. There is no freedom without that participation. Without that participation we end up with what we have presently: oligarchy (supreme power restricted to few). A 5 to 1
0 percent voter turnout is equal to an oligarchy, pure and simple (no further evaluation needed. We cannot for any extended period of time have both a "republic" and an "oligarchy." We aspire to a republic, but our actions indicate a clear choice of oligarchy, in all of its forms. If one does not exercise his right and privilege to vote on the decisions of the elected persons, he/she sacrifices their aspirations for a republic ruled by the people. The use of licenses and permits is a traditional way of influencing the participation of the citizens in the benefits of society. The simple requirement for proof of that participation with a voting card hardly infringes on the "rights" of the citizen or its participation in a "republic" form of government. In my humble opinion, it is impracticable to have a republic, an oligarchy, a dictatorship, a theocracy, etc. all at the same time and claim that the freedom to have all is in the best interests of the citizens, because t
his gives them the freedom to do what the want and what they they don't want, with absolutely no restrictions. It isn't working now, it ain't worked in the past history, and it is not likely to work in the future. You need only to read or listen to the world news and current global developments.
August 17, 2012 11:37am
Jon Stewart pointed out the political position of the Pennsylvania judge:
Former head of Pennsylvania Republican party, $30,000 contributor to the Ramney campaign...
"Although the judge called the remark “disturbing,” he wrote that it didn’t change his reasoning." I imagine the judge found the public disclosure of the intent disturbing and nothing else.
August 17, 2012 10:35am
I agree with GDUELL, let's start bringing those in need of ID to respective DOT centres in each state. Make sure everyone has the proper paperwork necessary and swamp the place. Better yet you guys in the states could rent Elections Canada, we don't have any elections going on. We count them by hand and have the results in a few hours after the polls close.
August 17, 2012 9:55am
why don't we just make a massive effort to get all these folks photo IDs instead of fighting in court?
August 17, 2012 7:25pm
Both are happening at the same time.