In
this Sept. 26, 2012 file photo, A man heads into the the Penndot
Drivers License Center in Butler, Pa., near a sign telling of the
requirement for voters to show an acceptable photo ID to vote. (AP
Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)
A
judge in Pennsylvania narrowly blocked the part of the state’s voter ID
law that would have required voters to present a photo ID within six
days of election day.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“We are very glad voters will not be turned away from the polls this November if they do not have an ID,” said Judith Browne Dianis, Co-Director of the Advancement Project, which sued to block the law. “The evidence made it clear to the judge that this law would indeed disenfranchise voters and that the Commonwealth was not equipped to implement it fairly right now.”
Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon,
focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email
her at jrayfield@salon.com.From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“Simpson decided that the law does not disenfranchise voters simply because it requires poll workers to ask for photo ID. Rather, the risk comes when a voter casts a provisional ballot but then cannot obtain the necessary identification in time.The narrow ruling will likely be appealed.
As a result, Simpson decided that for the November 6 election only, voters without appropriate photo ID could vote, but would no longer have to produce identification within six days, as their votes would be counted.”
“We are very glad voters will not be turned away from the polls this November if they do not have an ID,” said Judith Browne Dianis, Co-Director of the Advancement Project, which sued to block the law. “The evidence made it clear to the judge that this law would indeed disenfranchise voters and that the Commonwealth was not equipped to implement it fairly right now.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/pa_judge_narrowly_blocks_part_of_voter_id_law/
A judge is
basically "postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification
requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential
election," The Associated Press writes.
But in a ruling that's rather difficult to follow if you're not very familiar with the case, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson also says he "will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement."
Simpson ruled that a voter's "provisional ballot" cannot be declared invalid because of the lack of an ID and that the state's transitional effort to amend its laws regarding such votes must not take effect before Election Day — Nov. 6.
So, it appears from his ruling, election officials can ask for an ID. But a voter's lack of one will not invalidate his vote.
The ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.
As the AP wrote before the ruling was released:
Harrisburg's The Patriot-News sums up the story this way:
"The injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law — when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it — through the November election."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/02/162145104/judget-puts-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-on-hold-through-election?sc=nl&cc=brk-20121002-1017
But in a ruling that's rather difficult to follow if you're not very familiar with the case, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson also says he "will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement."
Simpson ruled that a voter's "provisional ballot" cannot be declared invalid because of the lack of an ID and that the state's transitional effort to amend its laws regarding such votes must not take effect before Election Day — Nov. 6.
So, it appears from his ruling, election officials can ask for an ID. But a voter's lack of one will not invalidate his vote.
The ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.
As the AP wrote before the ruling was released:
"Pennsylvania's new law, among the toughest in the nation, is a signature accomplishment of Republicans in control of Pennsylvania state government who say they fear election fraud. But it is an emotional target for Democrats who call it a Jim Crow-style scheme to make it harder for their party's traditional voters, including young adults and minorities, who might not carry the right kind of ID or know about the law."Update at 10:20 a.m. ET. Bottom Line Is "Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year."
Harrisburg's The Patriot-News sums up the story this way:
"Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson has ruled that Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year. Simpson is postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential election. ...The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette explains Simpon's ruling this way:
"The ruling means people will be asked to show ID but will be allowed to vote even if they don't. That was also the policy in effect for the primary this year."
"The injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law — when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it — through the November election."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/02/162145104/judget-puts-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-on-hold-through-election?sc=nl&cc=brk-20121002-1017
No comments:
Post a Comment