Subscribe

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law on Trial

By Mary Silver
Epoch Times Staff
Created: August 1, 2012 Last Updated: August 6, 2012
Related articles: United States » National News
Print E-mail to a friend Give feedback

Election workers greet a voter as he enters during the Republican primary election April 24 at Northern Liberties Neighbors Association in Philadelphia. (Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)

Election workers greet a voter as he enters during the Republican primary election April 24 at Northern Liberties Neighbors Association in Philadelphia. (Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)

A trial over Pennsylvania’s voter ID law will either uphold or block a new requirement that state Sen. Vincent Hughes (D-Phila./Montgomery) called “purely about partisan politics.” A ruling is expected this week.

In a phone press conference on July 31, Hughes said the law “reverts us back to the days of poll taxes.” He said that if the trial allows Pennsylvania voter ID requirements to stand, “we will do our best to make sure everyone who needs one gets an ID.”

“The context of the trial is that nationally we are in the middle of the biggest national rollback of voting rights in decades,” according to Wendy Weiser, co-director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The law disproportionately affects minorities, the elderly, and poor people, according to Weiser.

Great-grandmother Viviette Applewhite is the main plaintiff in Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. The 93-year-old, who marched with Martin Luther King, has been voting for 50 years.

Plaintiff Ana Gonzalez spoke at the press conference. She said she grew up in a household where voting was prized. She has always voted, and raised her children to follow civic issues and to always vote.

“My mother taught me. She read the paper and we discussed issues,” said Gonzalez.

Neither Applewhite nor Gonzalez has been able to get the kind of picture ID required to vote in the 2012 election.

Like Applewhite, after trying and failing to get the right documents, Gonzalez contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania and joined the lawsuit.

Pennsylvania is the biggest swing state with a restrictive voter ID law that is not yet blocked by the courts, and the law could affect the outcome of the presidential election, according to Weiser.

State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai’s recent statement appears to confirm Weiser’s assertion, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette reported. He said at a Republican State Committee meeting this month, “Voter ID … is going to allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” His spokesman, Steve Miskin, said that the law is meant to prevent fraud.

“The ACLU complaint ignores Supreme Court precedent, refers to several absurd ‘victim’ sob stories, and is predicated on a refuted report from the highly partisan Brennan Center,” said Justin Danhof, general counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, home of the Voter Identification Task Force, in a statement. “The judge should summarily dismiss the ACLU’s complaint and allow the Commonwealth to protect its citizenry’s sacred right to vote.” 

The Brennan Center report that Danhof referred to found that thousands of voters face expense and inconvenience in order to get a free government ID, so that they can vote.

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter. 



  • http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/ freeandequalpa

    ““The ACLU complaint ignores Supreme Court precedent, refers to several
    absurd ‘victim’ sob stories, and is predicated on a refuted report from
    the highly partisan Brennan Center,” said Justin Danhof, general counsel
    for the National Center for Public Policy Research”

    1) The Supreme Court case to which Danhof is referring, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, does not govern the challenge to the Pennsylvania photo ID law. In Crawford, plaintiffs alleged that Indiana’s photo ID law violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
    Constitution. The Court held that plaintiffs had not come forward with enough
    evidence to prove their allegation. The plaintiffs in the PA case have alleged only violations of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution, not the federal Constitution. A case
    holding that Indiana’s photo ID law does not violate the 14th Amendment
    of the US Constitution is irrelevant to a case challenging the PA photo
    ID law as violative of the PA Constitution. Here’s another way to look
    at it — the US Supreme Court will lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal
    from the PA Supreme Court’s final judgment in the PA case because the
    suit alleges no violation of federal law.

    2) The ACLU cited the Brennan report in its Complaint, but it is RELYING on a scientific report conducted last month by a professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, which concludes the more than 1 million voters in PA lack one of the approved forms of ID under the law. It is the first report discussed here:

    http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/petitioners-expert-reports/


   

GET THE FREE DAILY E-NEWSLETTER


Selected Topics from The Epoch Times

London 2012 Olympics