Pennsylvania: Support grows for PA online voter registration | Philadelphia Inquirer

The fall session will see a renewed push to make Pennsylvania’s election laws more technologically friendly. Senate Bill 37, sponsored by Sen. Llyod Smucker, R-Lancaster, would create an online system to register to vote in Pennsylvania. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate this spring, but it’s stalled in the House State Government Committee, where it hasn’t been taken up for a vote. Smucker called for action on the bill Tuesday morning in the Capitol rotunda, surrounded by two dozen citizens and advocates for the cause organized by the Day of Action for PA Voters. “There’s every reason to do this and to do it now,” he said. Smucker said he wished the bill could’ve passed in time for this fall, but there’s still plenty of time to approve it for next November. Smucker said online voting opens up the eligible pool of voters without being partial to party affiliation.

Pennsylvania: State: Only opinion on voter ID should come from court | Observer-Reporter

Mum’s the word when it comes to local election board members discussing the status of the Pennsylvania Voter ID law with prospective voters at the upcoming election. Larry Spahr, Washington County elections director, told a group of trainees gathered Friday morning to learn about operating the new electronic poll book that he had just received notification from the Pennsylvania Department of State that it intends to provide a flier to counties to disseminate to election boards. “You are not to verbalize an opinion on the law’s constitutionality to any voters,” Spahr told the election board members.

Pennsylvania: Special election cost Luzerne County $17,000 | Citizens’ Voice

The price tag to fix the foul-up in the May municipal primary election is $17,332.98, Elections Director Marisa Crispell said after the Luzerne County Board of Elections meeting Wednesday. The problem erupted when a candidate for the Hazleton Area School Board – which encompasses parts of Luzerne, Carbon and Schuylkill counties – withdrew from the race. The Luzerne County Bureau of Elections did not notify the other two counties of the withdrawal, which led to the candidate receiving votes despite bowing out. After a pair of Luzerne County judges ruled the election needed a do-over, county officials initially estimated it would cost $2,300 if conducted by mail. Instead, the counties decided to conduct a complete and more expensive re-do by opening polling places.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID injunction modified for time being | Montgomery News

Poll workers in the upcoming November election will not be permitted to tell voters that a photo ID will be required in future elections. As in the last two elections, voters may still be asked to show photo identification, but will not be required to produce it in order to vote. The slight change to the preliminary injunction that has put the Voter ID law on hold since it was passed in March 2012 was made by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley Aug. 16 following a trial on the merits of the controversial law. Montgomery County Director of Communications Frank Custer said Aug. 23 that poll workers would be informed of the change prior to the November election. “We hold, before every election, several poll worker training [sessions] throughout the county,” Custer said, adding that the new ruling would be covered in the upcoming sessions.

Pennsylvania: State joins multi-state initiative to prevent voter fraud | PennLive.com

Pennsylvania is joining a multi-state consortium that aims to preserve the integrity of every vote by preventing voters from voting in an election in more than one state. Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele announced this new effort today at a statewide conference of county election officials in Philadelphia. “One concern about the integrity of voter lists has always been whether someone who moves to another state could be registered and possibly cast votes in both states, which is against the law. Participating in this consortium is our best way to prevent that,” said Aichele, whose department oversees elections in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania: Appellate court blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law for November 5 election | Reuters

An appellate court on Friday ruled that Pennsylvania will once again be prohibited from enforcing its controversial voter identification law at the polls in November. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley issued an injunction that prohibits use of the law at the general election on November 5 and also stops poll workers from telling voters they may have to produce identification in future elections, according to the court’s website. The November election will be the third election in which the law was blocked from being used since the measure was passed in March 2012, by a Republican-led legislature.

Pennsylvania: Judge again blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law…for now | CNN

A Pittsburgh judge on Friday barred enforcement of Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law for the Nov. 5 general election, as well as any election that may come before. State Judge Bernard McGinley’s preliminary injunction means Pennsylvania will again go the polls with no enforcement of the law – a different judge made similar ruling a month before the 2012 presidential election. In fact, the controversial law has never been implemented; it has languished in a legal limbo since Republican Governor Tom Corbett signed the bill into law in March of 2012.

Pennsylvania: Greens, independents, plan new push for Pennsylvania ballot access | Philadelphia Weekly

Another legislative season will soon begin in Pennsylvania, and the state Green Party is still attempting to pressure a vote on a bill that would allow third-party candidates for state office easier access to the ballot. Their latest tactic: an online petition to pressure Harrisburg into a vote. Then, say supporters, there’s more to come. The petition asks supporters to sign in support of Senate Bill 195, introduced by Senator Mike Folmer (R-Berks) as mirror legislation to SB 21, which he introduced last session. Folmer’s bill would lower the standard as to what constitutes a third party and therefore does not require independent candidates to jump through hoops to get on the ballot, as is currently the case. The petition “demands” the bill move out of committee—it’s currently sitting in the State Government Committee, chaired by Sen. Lloyd Smucker (R-Lancaster)—to a hearing and then a vote in the full Senate. As we’ve documented before, these days, that basic legislative process is a lot to ask for any bill that doesn’t have the blessing of establishment Republicans.

Pennsylvania: Details of voter ID enforcement ban in dispute | Associated Press

Both sides in the trial over Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law agree that it should not be enforced in the Nov. 5 general election, but the judge will have to settle a dispute over the details, according to court papers filed this week. Plaintiffs seeking to overturn the 17-month-old law argue that any new court order barring enforcement of the photo ID requirement should remain in effect until the state Supreme Court resolves questions about its constitutionality. “Nothing has changed since last fall, or is likely to change in the future, that would justify lifting the preliminary injunction before the end of this case,” the plaintiffs’ legal team argued in a brief filed Monday in state Commonwealth Court.

Pennsylvania: How Much Is Voter ID Defense Costing Pennsylvania? | WESA

Pennsylvania taxpayers still haven’t seen a final tab on what the state is being charged by a private firm to defend the voter identification law in court. In fact, a contract was not publicly available until the day after closing arguments were delivered in the case. Philadelphia firm Drinker, Biddle and Reath hasn’t yet sent an invoice to the state for services rendered in 2013. The hourly rate ranges from $325 to $495. Last year, the firm was paid more than $204,000 for defense of voter ID as judges considered temporarily blocking the law.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID update | Philadelphia Inquirer

Civil rights and other groups seeking to overturn the state’s controversial voter ID law are asking a Commonwealth Court judge to block the law from taking effect until all appeals have been exhausted. The ACLU of Pennsylvania and other public interest groups are also asking Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley to prevent poll workers, come the November election, from asking voters to show ID – or even informing them that it will be required in future elections – while the case is being decided. Whatever the outcome in Commonwealth Court, the case is widely expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. “The uncontroverted evidence illustrates that this practice has only confused poll workers and voters, with no benefit to anyone,” the petitioners’ brief, filed Monday, reads. The state said during the trial, which concluded last week, that it had no problem extending the injunction on the law through this November’s election.

Pennsylvania: Lawyers sum up their cases in voter ID trial | Associated Press

The 12-day trial over Pennsylvania’s tough voter-identification law ended Thursday with the state contending that officials have provided safeguards to ensure any registered voter can easily get the mandatory photo ID and plaintiffs urging the judge to overturn the law because it violates voters’ constitutional rights. “It is time to put an end to this and enjoin the law,” Jennifer Clarke, director of Philadelphia’s Public Interest Law Center and a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, told Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley. Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok, arguing for the state, said the plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional. State officials have done “whatever is possible, whatever is necessary and whatever is legal” to ensure that voters know about the new law and how to apply for a free, voting-only card if they lack any other acceptable forms of ID, Hickok said.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law put on hold in November | The Morning Call

State lawyers agreed Thursday not to implement Pennsylvania’s voter ID law in the November election regardless of a judge’s pending decision on whether the law is constitutional. The state attorney general’s office agreed to extend a temporary injunction before the start of closing arguments in a two-week-long trial in Commonwealth Court. Some details of the agreement have yet to be worked out, said D. Alicia Hickok, the state’s attorney. Voters will be able to vote in the general election even if they do not have photo identification cards as the 2012 law requires, she said. The state would like poll workers to still ask voters to show proof of identification, she said. “Poll workers were confused. People were confused, and some were turned away from the polls [in prior elections],” Clarke said. Whatever the final agreement looks like, it will not stop Judge Bernard L. McGinley from deciding the law’s fate. In closing arguments Thursday, Clarke called the law “unreasonably and unnecessarily burdensome,” and said it infringes upon Pennsylvania citizens’ right to vote. She estimated at least 500,000 registered voters lack proper ID, based on a statistical analysis of voting records.

Pennsylvania: Lawyers Spar Over Voter ID Law In Court | Associated Press

The judge in Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law trial cleared the courtroom Tuesday so lawyers could spar in private over how many voters may have been unable to obtain an acceptable photo IDs before last year’s election. Lawyers planned to make closing arguments before Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley on Wednesday, the 11th day of the trial on the constitutionality of the yet-to-be-enforced law. The closed hearing involved 144 voters who were on a Pennsylvania Department of State spreadsheet of about 600 who applied for an ID at PennDOT licensing centers but did not obtain a free, voting-only license designed by the Department of State. Those IDs, under rules streamlined in late September, are supposed to be readily available to registered voters.

Pennsylvania: Closing arguments postponed in voter ID trial | Associated Press

A judge extended the trial over Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law Wednesday into a 12th day after lawyers called a truce in a behind-the-scenes battle and the state filed a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley scheduled closing arguments, which lawyers on both sides had expected as early as Wednesday, for Thursday. The March 2012 law was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature without any Democratic votes and signed by GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, but court orders have prevented it from being enforced. Democrats charged that it was a cynical attempt in a presidential election year to discourage voting by minorities, young adults and other groups that tend to vote Democratic. Republicans said it bolsters the security of Pennsylvania’s elections, though state officials have conceded that they are not aware of any cases of voter impersonation.

Pennsylvania: State ends testimony in voter ID case | Philadelphia Inquirer

The battle over Pennsylvania’s voter identification law touched on familiar themes Tuesday as the state concluded its case after almost three weeks of testimony. Witnesses for the Department of State testified for several hours detailing the extent to which they worked to make information about the law widely known – including reaching out to the elderly, veterans groups, the homeless, and immigrant communities – to ensure residents without ID would understand the steps needed to get it. Attorneys for the plaintiffs questioned the same officials about the wide range of difficulties voters encountered and the disparity in estimates on how many remain without proper ID. Closing arguments are expected Wednesday.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID’s fate now in judge’s hands | Philadelphia Inquirer

The fate of Pennsylvania’s 16-month-old voter identification law is in the hands of a Commonwealth Court judge after closing arguments in the landmark voting-rights case Thursday. The state argued that it had done its part to ensure that all registered voters had access to mandatory ID, while petitioners countered that those efforts were not enough. Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, said the law placed a “fundamental burden” on a right “enshrined in the Constitution.” “It is time to put an end to this and enjoin this law,” Clarke told Judge Bernard McGinley. Attorneys for the state offered no evidence of voter fraud in the commonwealth but defended the law as needed to protect the integrity of the vote. Alicia Hickok, an attorney with Drinker Biddle representing the state, said officials had done “whatever is possible, whatever is necessary, and whatever is legal” to ensure that voters know about the new law and how to go about applying for a free, voting-only card if they lack any other acceptable forms of ID.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID debate has come a long way | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

This summer, like last, teams of lawyers have spent days in a courtroom near the state Capitol arguing whether the state’s voter ID law creates too great a barrier to the polls. At a glance, the hearing last summer over the law’s enforcement at the approaching November elections and the one currently taking place in Commonwealth Court over its permanent fate are similar enough that spectators could be forgiven for a sense of deja vu. Again, voters without identification testify about their difficulties getting it. Experts estimate what portion of the electorate lacks acceptable ID. Opponents argue the law will stand between citizens and their right to vote, while the state counters it has provided ample opportunity to obtain an ID included in the law.

Pennsylvania: Balancing voter ID law against voters’ rights | Associated Press

Two weeks into the trial on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law, both sides profess confidence that they will prevail. That’s probably a good indication that neither is really sure. After nine days of testimony by state government bureaucrats, nationally known experts on statistics and communications and individual voters frustrated by the new photo ID requirement, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley put the trial on hold for a four-day weekend as lawyers prepare to sum up their cases in closing arguments anticipated next week. The issue is where the line should be drawn between Pennsylvanians’ right to vote and the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of elections. So far, the debate has been largely hypothetical _ the court has blocked enforcement of the March 2012 law since before the presidential election _ but the trial verdict will be a major step toward deciding whether it is allowed to take effect. The law would require all voters to show a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another acceptable photo ID with a current expiration date before they may cast ballots in an election. Voters who go to the polls without proper ID could only cast provisional ballots, which would be counted only if they provide local officials with an acceptable ID within six days after the election.

Pennsylvania: AFL-CIO analysis finds state’s voter ID law disenfranchised thousands of voters | PennLive.com

While the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by the state’s voter ID law is an area of dispute in the ongoing Commonwealth Court case seeking to overturn that law, a statewide union says it can say with 99 percent certainty there were in the November 2012 election. The trial of the state’s voter ID law continues on Thursday, but meanwhile, a labor union offers up its own analysis that claims the law that has yet to be enforced has already disenfranchised voters. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO released its analysis that indicates between 35,239 and 36,613 people were so confused about whether or not they had to produce an acceptable photo ID to vote in the last presidential election that they just stayed home. Nils Hagen-Frederikson, a spokesman for the governor’s Office of General Counsel, dismissed the analysis’ findings. “We are focused on the facts and evidence being discussed in court, not press releases or questionable claims from outside groups.” he said.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID trial recesses in disarray | Associated Press

The eighth day of a trial on Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law ended in disarray Wednesday as plaintiffs’ attorneys contesting the law’s constitutionality refused to rest their case until they learn more about potential problems in issuing mandatory photo ID cards. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley expressed impatience at the slow pace of the trial and cleared the courtroom briefly to huddle with lawyers from both sides, but court recessed for the day with little sign of a compromise. The state did, however, present some testimony in defense of the law. At issue are about 500 registered voters who were rejected for a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation identification card last year and were referred to the Department of State for a free, voting-only ID card developed in August.

Pennsylvania: State to open defense of voter ID law today | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s new voter identification law presented their final witnesses Tuesday in an effort to convince a state judge that it cannot be implemented without disenfranchising large numbers of voters. Three witnesses — all older women who no longer have driver’s licenses and rely mainly on relatives and friends for transportation — testified in video recordings played before Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the yet-to-be-enforced mandatory photo ID requirement, one of the strictest in the nation, would discourage many such people from exercising their right to vote. State officials say any registered voter who lacks an acceptable ID can get a special Pennsylvania Department of State voting-only ID for free through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

Pennsylvania: Why Voter ID Law Was Flawed From Outset | HispanicBusiness.com

While the Pennsylvania voter ID law was being developed, officials within the Corbett administration noted concerns similar to those now raised in court by parties claiming the requirement is unconstitutional. An internal bill analysis presented in Commonwealth Court on Monday by challengers of the law shows the Department of State had learned that college students and residents of care facilities might not be reached by provisions of the law intended to ensure they would have access to acceptable identification. Most university identification lacked expiration dates, while most care facilities did not issue IDs, the December 2011 analysis said. Of particular concern was a scenario that could be encountered by residents of care facilities that house polling places. A resident too unwell to travel to a Department of Transportation licensing center to obtain an ID might still be able to get to the polls and thus be ineligible to vote absentee. “The individual may then claim that he or she has been deprived the right to vote,” the document says.

Pennsylvania: Officials Knew ID Law Could Erode Senior Vote: Memo | Law360

As a trial over the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s voter identification law stretched into a second week in Commonwealth Court, attorneys for the challengers introduced evidence Monday showing that state officials had raised concerns about the potential disenfranchisement of senior citizens in the months leading up to the bill’s final passage. Michael Rubin, an Arnold & Porter LLP attorney representing the challengers, pointed to a memo penned by officials in the Department of State and the Department of Aging in November 2011 raising concerns that voters residing in assisted living facilities that double as polling places might be robbed of their votes if they don’t qualify for absentee ballots and are unable to obtain qualifying IDs due to their age or medical condition. The memo recommended that absentee ballot requirements — which currently mandate that a voter submit an affidavit swearing their inability to make it to the polls on account of illness or disability — be expanded for individuals whose long-term care facilities also serve as polling places. While these individuals might be able to get to their polling places on Election Day, the memo suggested, there was a chance they might be unable to obtain proper IDs from one of 71 driver’s license centers throughout the state.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law defended in high court | Associated Press

A former policy director for Pennsylvania’s Department of State defended the state’s tough voter identification law yesterday as a reasonable compromise that followed intense negotiations, even though it omits changes that the department proposed to ease some of the requirements. Lawyers for plaintiffs seeking to overturn the mandatory photo ID requirement yesterday questioned the official, Rebecca Oyler, about memos and emails describing negotiations over the legislation in late 2011. Oyler cited examples of her department’s suggestions that were rejected. One called for excusing residents of long-term care facilities from the photo requirement and allowing them to vote through the simpler process of absentee voting. Instead, the law allows the facilities to issue photo IDs.

Pennsylvania: Memo reveals agencies concerned voter ID would disenfranchise some | witf.org

Testimony in the second week of a trial of Pennsylvania’s voter identification law is digging into the documentation of how the language of the law was finalized. Two state agencies suggested in 2011 that the voter ID legislation then making its way through the Legislature should make it easier for elderly and disabled voters to cast absentee ballots. A memo from the Department of Aging and the Department of State points out the change would provide a way for such people to vote even if they had trouble getting photo ID because of illness or limited mobility. Pennsylvania requires absentee voters to swear that they are unable to vote at their polling place. Agency secretaries, writing to Gov. Corbett’s top aides, wrote that such an oath may not be possible for voters who can make it to their polling places, but have difficulty getting to a PennDOT licensing center “because of illness or physical disability.” The memo suggests loosening the restrictions around the state’s absentee ballot as part of the voter ID legislation would be a “good solution to ensure that no qualified elector is disenfranchised because illness or disability prevented him/her from obtaining necessary proof of ID – no matter the specific circumstances involved.”

Pennsylvania: Official says voter ID underwent many changes | Associated Press

A former policy director for Pennsylvania’s Department of State defended the state’s tough voter identification law Monday as a reasonable compromise that followed intense negotiations, even though it omits changes that the department proposed to ease some of the requirements. Lawyers for plaintiffs seeking to overturn the mandatory photo ID requirement Monday questioned the official, Rebecca Oyler about memos and emails describing negotiations over the legislation in late 2011. Oyler cited examples of her department’s suggestions that were rejected. One called for excusing residents of long-term care facilities from the photo requirement and allowing them to vote through the simpler process of absentee voting. Instead, the law allows the facilities to issue photo IDs. When asked if the department could do anything more to improve it, Oyler replied, “I think we’ve done everything that we see as being reasonable.”

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law trial wraps up first week | Associated Press

A professor who specializes in political communication gave low grades Friday to the 2012 multimedia campaign to educate Pennsylvania voters about the state’s new voter-identification law as part of a court trial on its constitutionality. Diana Mutz, a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and its Annenberg School for Communication, said the centerpiece of the campaign — TV ads in which people holding up photo ID cards urged voters to “show it” — seemed confusing. “It wasn’t always clear what ‘it’ was,” said Mutz, the author of several books, who testified as an expert witness on behalf of plaintiffs who sued the state in an attempt to overturn the yet-to-be-enforced March 2012 law.

Pennsylvania: Homeless advocate testifies at voter ID trial | The Reporter

A witness described his efforts to help homeless people in Philadelphia qualify for state photo identification cards, and lawyers clashed over a year-old survey that showed large numbers of voters lacking acceptable IDs as a trial on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s yet-to-be-enforced voter ID law reached its third day Wednesday. Late in the day, a lawyer for plaintiffs seeking to overturn the law began questioning Jonathan Marks, a high-ranking elections official, about the evolution of a special Pennsylvania Department of State photo ID available to voters who can’t obtain other acceptable identification, but the testimony was continued until Thursday.

Pennsylvania: Elections Are Over, But Voter ID Is Not | ABC News

Pennsylvania court may rule this week on the legality of the state’s controversial new voter identification law. Passed last spring without a single Democratic vote, the law was blocked before the presidential election by a judge who said the state had not done enough to ensure people who needed IDs got them. The state offered free IDs, but there were limited locations and hours to obtain them, opponents argued. That injunction didn’t stop the state from putting up Spanish-language billboards urging people to show ID at the polls, though. The law eventually made its way to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, which ordered the Commonwealth Court to examine its constitutionality. The trial began this week and could go either way. If the court sides in favor of the law, its opponents will likely appeal to the state Supreme Court. The issue is fraught with emotion and comes just after the U.S. Supreme Court crippled a key part of the Voting Rights Act.