Pa. court hears voter ID appeal

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in an appeal to the state’s new strict voter ID law, the latest in a back-and-forth battle that began when the law was signed in March.

Opponents of the law asked the court to place a preliminary injunction on the law, arguing that the timeline for implementation before Election Day in November doesn’t give voters enough time to comply with its requirements. Attorneys for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, however, urged the justices to uphold the law and respect the wishes of the state Legislature in regulating the election process.


Pennsylvania’s law is one of a handful of voter ID laws spearheaded by GOP-led legislatures and Republican governors around the country. It is one of the strictest laws of its kind that seeks to crack down on voter fraud on the polls to be enacted before the November election.

It’s unclear exactly when a decision will be released in the case — but given the timing issues of implementing or halting the law by Election Day, the court will most likely expedite its decision.

“I would be surprised if the court doesn’t issue a decision very quickly,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Everyone understands the need for a quick resolution.”

The law, which requires all voters to bring to the polls an ID issued by the state government or the U.S. government, or another valid credential like a valid student ID, in order to cast their vote. If voters do not have appropriate ID, they can cast a provisional ballot and their vote will be counted if they bring adequate ID to their local elections office within six days.

Pennsylvania’s Republican-led Legislature passed the law, and GOP Gov. Tom Corbett signed it, in March, despite criticisms from Democrats and state voting-rights groups that it would disproportionately affect young and lower-income voters.

A coalition of groups, including state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Conservation Voters, filed a challenge to the law this summer. But Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson refused to block the law in a decision handed down last month.

In his Aug. 15 decision, Simpson said the law’s opponents didn’t offer sufficient proof that “disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable.”

“[T]he inconvenience of going to PennDOT [Department of Transportation], gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on the vast super-majority of registered voters,” Simpson wrote.

The law’s opponents appealed Simpson’s decision to the state Supreme Court, where ACLU attorney David Gersch argued that the timing of the law makes it nearly impossible for many of the state’s voters to comply with the new requirements and obtain adequate ID in time to vote.

“One of the biggest concerns here is the real short time between now and the election for all of these changes,” Weiser said. “And I think that was driven home very strongly in the argument.”

Gersch advocated for a preliminary injunction to the law now, to figure out better alternatives or debate the merits of the law itself after November.

“All we’re asking is that there be a preliminary injunction now so that the present law is maintained, the status quo is maintained, through the election and then there will at some point be a trial on the merits,” he said. “If the legislation really can’t get everyone the right to vote, then our position is the law ought not to be upheld.”

He cited other states’ efforts — like Virginia’s new voter ID law, which does not require photo ID, or Michigan’s, which allows voters to sign an affidavit swearing their identity in lieu of presenting adequate ID — as examples of ways to implement stricter laws without disenfranchising voters.

“We have no problem requiring photo ID to vote,” he said. “The vice is in requiring photo IDs that people don’t have and have a hard time getting.”

Arguing on behalf of the state, attorney John Knorr acknowledged that the commonwealth “could probably do better” at implementing the law if it had more time and worked toward full implementation after November, but said that issue should be left up to the state legislature.

“The timing of the statute as well as the substance of it, all of those things are matters for the judgment of the General Assembly,” he said. “And they think that this system is better than the one that we had before.”

Also at issue in Thursday’s arguments was the number of voters that would actually be disenfranchised by the new requirements. A report issued by PennDOT over the summer found that more than 9 percent of Pennsylvania’s registered voters — including 18 percent of Philadelphia County, a Democratic stronghold — didn’t have adequate IDs under the new law. That number doesn’t include first-time voters.

Knorr and fellow Commonwealth Attorney Alfred Putnam said the PennDOT predictions are vastly overblown.

“This idea that, on Election Day, we’re going to have a million and a half voters without ID, that’s a fantasy,” Knorr said.