Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Judge Bars Voter-ID Law for 2012 Election | Businessweek

A Pennsylvania judge barred enforcement of the state’s voter photo-identification law until after the November election. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson today said that while election officials can ask for ID on Election Day, voters without ID can still cast ballots and have them counted. Previously the law had given those voters six days after the election to get ID to have their provisional ballots counted. Enacted in March, the law requires voters to present a state-issued ID, or an acceptable alternative such as a military ID, to cast a ballot. Opponents of the law said probable Democratic voters, such as the elderly and the poor, were those least likely to have a valid ID by Election Day.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania udge rejects settlement over polling place access | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A federal judge Monday gave the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Allegheny County Board of Elections a week to come up with alternatives to a consent order that they hoped would resolve a dispute over media access to the polls on Nov. 6 and beyond. The newspaper has sued the board and Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele, claiming that barring media from the polls, especially during the first election governed by the voter identification law, violates the First Amendment right to gather news. A state law bars anyone but voters and poll workers from coming within 10 feet of polling places.

Pennsylvania: Deadline nears on judge’s Pennsylvania voter ID law ruling | Associated Press

A court-imposed Tuesday deadline is looming for a judge to decide whether Pennsylvania’s tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification can remain intact, a ruling that could swing election momentum to Republican candidates now trailing in polls on the state’s top-of-the-ticket races. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson is under a state Supreme Court order to rule no later than Tuesday, just five weeks before voters decide whether to re-elect President Barack Obama, a Democrat, or replace him with Mitt Romney, a Republican. Simpson heard two days of testimony last week and said he was considering invalidating a narrow portion of the law for the Nov. 6 election. An appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.

Pennsylvania: Judge crafting a way to keep Pennsylvania voter ID law and allow people to vote | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The state appellate judge overseeing a new hearing on the voter ID law suggested as arguments closed this afternoon that he is considering halting a narrow section of that controversial law. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson interrogated attorneys from both sides as to how he could alter the photo identification requirement to prevent voter disenfranchisement. He focused largely on the section stating that anyone without a photo ID would be able to vote by provisional ballot, and that the ballot would be counted if they can show photo ID within six days of the election. “Provisional ballots seem to be the sticking point,” Judge Simpson said. “It’s not the smoothest part of [the law].”

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Photo ID May Be Headed Back to Supreme Court | Brad Blog

On Friday, Sept. 28, attorneys representing the petitioners in a lawsuitchallenging the legality of Pennsylvania’s draconian polling place Photo ID law filed a 26-page Post Hearing Brief [PDF] in which they counseled Commonwealth Judge Robert E. Simpson not to defy the state Supreme Court by issuing alimited injunction that could force a minimum of 90,000, but perhaps as many as 1.6 million voters, who lack the requisite Photo IDs, to cast provisional ballots during the Nov. 6, 2012 election. The brief was filed one day after Judge Simpson informed the parties that, despite evidence that there was no conceivable means by which the Commonwealth could supply all of the otherwise eligible voters with the requisite Photo IDs before the Nov. 6 election, he was inclined to enjoin only that portion of the Photo ID law’s provisional ballot section that contains disenfranchising language.

Pennsylvania: Voters Battle Bureaucracy Ahead Of ID Law Ruling | NPR

The first sign that getting a new ID isn’t going to be easy for Beverly Mitchell and Kathleen Herbert comes before the pair have even left their downtown Philadelphia senior center. As they wait for a ride to a nearby Department of Motor Vehicles office, they get the news: The van that was supposed to take them is broken. Herbert and Mitchell are going to the DMV because they want to make sure they will be able to vote this fall. Depending on how a Pennsylvania judge rules on the state’s controversial new voter ID law, they might need to show a valid photo ID before they can punch a ballot. The court is hearing new testimony this week, and the judge has until next Tuesday to decide whether to block the law, which the state’s Supreme Court has ordered him to do if he thinks any voters will be disenfranchised.

Pennsylvania: Witnesses recall hurdles to get Pennsylvania voter ID | Reuters

A dozen witnesses testified on Thursday about the hours-long waits, multiple trips and misinformation they experienced in getting the voter ID cards required under a Pennsylvania law that a judge will soon decide whether to block. On the second day of hearings called by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, a parade of witnesses, including one in a wheelchair and another who walks with a cane, spoke about the hurdles they faced to get the cards before the November 6 presidential election. Simpson set a deadline of Friday for lawyers to submit documents, including their suggestions on what kind of injunction to issue should he find voters have less than “liberal access” to the IDs required under the battleground state’s new law. Simpson is expected to rule ahead of the October 2 deadline set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court when it ordered him to reconsider the law he upheld in August.

Pennsylvania: Chief State election official confident voter ID law will stand | CentreDaily.com

While a Commonwealth Court judge decides whether Pennsylvania voters will have to show legal identification at the polls Nov. 6, the state’s chief elections official is not taking any chances. Secretary of State Carol Aichele has been touring the commonwealth to get the word out that voter ID is a reality and the state is poised to help anyone who wants to vote. At her latest stop, speaking at Penn State’s HUBRobeson Center on Wednesday morning, Aichele said she thinks the Voter ID law will stand because all residents have a fair opportunity — so-called liberal access — to a legal photo ID. “Liberal access means that anyone who wants a photo ID can get one,” Aichele said. “And now if you go to a licensing center in Pennsylvania … you have a choice. You can even get a non-driver photo ID.”

Pennsylvania: Judge may allow most of voter-ID law | Philadelphia Inquirer

A Commonwealth Court judge said Thursday that he was considering allowing most of the state’s controversial voter-identification law to remain intact for the November election and was contemplating only a very narrow injunction. Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. said at the end of the second and last day of a hearing on whether to halt voter-ID requirements for the Nov. 6 election that he was considering an injunction that would target the portion of the law that deals with provisional ballots. As written, the law says voters who do not bring proper photo ID on Election Day can cast a provisional ballot. They would then have six days to bring in the required photo ID for their votes to count.

Pennsylvania: Judge hints he may block Pennsylvania voter ID | Philadelphia Inquirer

With just six weeks until the presidential election, a judge raised the possibility Tuesday that he would move to block Pennsylvania’s controversial voter ID law. “I’m giving you a heads-up,” Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. told lawyers after a day’s testimony on whether the law is being implemented in ways that ensure no voters will be disenfranchised. “I think it’s a possibility there could be an injunction here.” Simpson then asked lawyers on both sides to be prepared to return to court Thursday to present arguments on what such an injunction should look like. There is no hearing Wednesday because of Yom Kippur. Simpson gave few if any further clues to what he may decide. But his comments provided a dramatic end to a day of testimony in a protracted and widely watched fight over the law, which requires voters to present photo identification at the polls.

Pennsylvania: Why voter ID isn’t needed: For one thing, casting a fraudulent vote isn’t worth the risk of years in prison | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The argument in favor of Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law can be summed up this way: You need photo identification to cash a check, board an airplane, secure health care, buy pharmaceuticals or alcohol, so what’s the big deal about needing one to vote? On its face, the argument is simple, commonsensical, compelling. On closer analysis, its infirmities become apparent, especially when compared with the procedures that long have been in place to prevent in-person voter fraud. One can judge whether a law is good or bad by asking whether the law addresses a critical problem and seeks to solve the problem rationally. The Pennsylvania Legislature has banned texting while driving because of the overwhelming evidence that it causes motor vehicle accidents. Similarly, the Legislature requires motorists to give bicyclists a 4-foot buffer when passing. The ostensible purpose behind Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is to prevent in-person voter fraud, which occurs when someone appears at a polling place pretending to be someone else and attempts to vote as that other person. The public record demonstrates that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID requirements change | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The state judge listening to a new round of arguments on the state’s voter identification law concluded the day-long session by directing attorneys to come prepared Thursday to argue what they think a potential injunction should look like. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said it’s his responsibility to consider the possibility of halting the new law — which requires all voters present a photo ID card with an expiration date in order to cast a ballot — and how to tailor such an action so that it addresses why the law isn’t being properly implemented. “I think it’s possible there could be an injunction entered here,” he said. “I need some input from people who have been thinking about this longer than I have.”

Pennsylvania: Weeks before election, Pennsylvania voter ID law back in court | Reuters

A judge who will decide whether Pennsylvania’s new voter-identification law should be blocked heard testimony on Tuesday from one witness who said fears that the measure placed an unfair burden on residents were overblown. The witness, Kurt Myers, a deputy secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, said about 11,000 voters have gotten the mandated ID cards at the center of the controversial law and thousands more were set to get theirs before the November 6 election. “We’re in the business of issuing IDs, not denying IDs,” Myers told Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law In Jeopardy As Next Court Case Opens | Huffington Post

The state of Pennsylvania’s ability to get every would-be voter a government-issued photo ID by Election Day will literally be on trial Tuesday. The hearing before Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson comes after the state Supreme Court last week instructed him to block a new law requiring ID at the polls unless he determines “that there will be no voter disenfranchisement” arising from its implementation. Opponents of the law have said the state can’t possibly prove that case, as the law’s entire reason for existence is precisely to make it harder for the poor, members of minority groups, students, and the elderly to cast their ballots, and in that way suppress the Democratic vote. Republican backers of the law have said it was intended to fight voter fraud. But in-person voter fraud — the only kind voter ID would reduce — is almost nonexistent.

Pennsylvania: Court Reconsiders Voter ID Availability | Businessweek

The Pennsylvania judge who last month upheld a law requiring voters to show photo identification is scheduled today to hear arguments over whether people will be able to comply before the general election in November. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sept. 18 ordered Commonwealth Judge Richard E. Simpson to consider whether all eligible voters will be able to obtain acceptable ID if the law is upheld. Simpson ruled Aug. 15 that plaintiffs including the American Civil Liberties Union hadn’t proved the law would disenfranchise voters. The state high court asked Simpson to submit a supplemental opinion on the availability of alternate IDs by Oct. 2.

Pennsylvania: Provisional ballots loom large in Pennsylvania voter id law | mcall.com

Hail the lowly and under-appreciated provisional ballot. If the courts leave Pennsylvania’s voter ID law in place for the November election, this rarely used paper stand-in for the modern electronic voting machine could be all that stands between a voter who shows up at the polls without an acceptable ID and electoral disappointment. But just filling out the ballot on Nov. 6 won’t be enough. Under the law, voters who complete provisional ballots because they failed to bring an ID to the polls must provide proof of ID to their county voter registration office within six days of voting for their votes to count. The ID can be emailed, faxed, mailed or brought to the office in person, and must be accompanied by a signed affirmation that the voter cast a provisional ballot.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Laws ‘Stink,’ Says Republican Community Leader | Huffington Post

Longtime Republican politician Stanley R. Lawson Sr. says he knows a rat when he smells one. And what’s going on politically around recently passed voter ID laws in his home state of Pennsylvania reeks of partisan politics. Lawson, 70, a registered Republican, is currently the head of the Harrisburg chapter of the NAACP, but has served as chair to the Dauphin County Republican Party and as a member of the Harrisburg City Council. “The whole thing stinks,” Lawson told The Huffington Post on Friday afternoon. “They say the reason they did this is because of all the fraud going on. But I happen to be a former Republican chairman of the county, I’ve been on the city council, I’ve been a township commissioner, and I’ve never seen it or heard anyone complain about voter fraud.”

Pennsylvania: Panel picks apart Pennsylvania voter ID law | The Times-Tribune

The devil is in the details of a controversial voter identification law being appealed in the lower courts of Pennsylvania this month, and registered voters need to educate themselves on those details before voting in November, panelists said at a forum Wednesday night. “It’s one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country,” said Sara Mullen, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. The commentary came during a voter identification forum at the University of Scranton on Wednesday night in front of a crowd of about 30 people. Panelists discussed the law as it stands now and what it meant for voters, who will be required to present government issued photo identification that also has an expiration date.

Pennsylvania: Democrats, Republicans Battle Over Voter ID Laws | VoA News

A court battle over the state of Pennsylvania’s controversial voter identification law is being seen as a proxy in the battle between Republicans and Democrats.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has asked a lower court to reconsider its earlier ruling in favor of the law.  Republican legislatures across the country have pushed voter ID laws – ostensibly to prevent voter fraud.  Democrats argue the laws are an attempt to suppress minority voter turnout. Democratic volunteers are canvassing Philadelphia neighborhoods with information on the state’s new voter ID law. The Republican-sponsored law requires voters to have state-approved photo ID to vote. But more than 700,000 voters may not have one.

Pennsylvania: Sponsor Of Voter ID Law Defends Romney, Says ‘Lazy’ People Also Shouldn’t Vote | ThinkProgress

As Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law returns to the lower court for reconsideration, its original sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), told KDKA Radio Wednesday morning that his law will only disenfranchise “lazy” people, like the ones Mitt Romney was talking about in the leaked video of a private fundraiser. When asked about the voter ID law’s disenfranchisement of the 750,000 Pennsylvanians who cannot get IDs, Metcalfe cited Romney’s offhand dismissal of the 47% of the country who will never “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” as proof that those people don’t deserve the right to vote.

Pennsylvania: State Supreme Court Vacates Lower Court Voter ID Ruling | NYTimes.com

In August, a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge upheld the state’s new voter ID law—despite the fact that state officials presented no evidence of in-person voter fraud, and didn’t even try to claim that voter fraud would likely occur this November in the absence of an ID requirement. Contrary to expectations, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday vacated that lower court ruling. The Supreme Court did not strike down the law, but it returned the case to the Commonwealth Court for review because “the Law is not being implemented according to its own terms.” Briefly, while the law requires “liberal access” to non-driver photo IDs, it’s still difficult to obtain one. “Generally, the process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal…a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency.”

Pennsylvania: State Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Voter ID Law | TPM

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the state’s voter ID law on Tuesday, ordering a lower court to rethink its decision upholding the law earlier this year. In a 4-2 ruling, the justices ordered the lower court to block the law unless Pennsylvania can prove it is currently providing “liberal access” to photo identification cards and that there “will be no voter disenfranchisement” on Election Day. The two dissenters opposed the voter ID law and wanted the Supreme Court to issue an injunction itself. The ruling said there was a “disconnect” between what the law prescribes and how it was actually being implemented. It said an “ambitious effort” to implement identification procedures in a short timeframe “has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch.”

Pennsylvania: High court wants review of voter ID access | The Associated Press

Pennsylvania’s highest court on Tuesday told a lower court that it should stop a tough new voter photo identification law from taking effect in this year’s presidential election if the judge concludes voters cannot easily get ID cards or thinks they will be disenfranchised. The 4-2 decision by the state Supreme Court sends the case back to the lower Commonwealth Court, where a judge initially ruled in August that the divisive law could go forward. The high court asked for an opinion by Oct. 2 — just 35 days before the election. If the judge finds there will be no voter disenfranchisement and that IDs are easily obtained, then the 6-month-old law can stand, the Supreme Court said. But the Supreme Court’s directions to the lower court set a much tougher standard than the one Judge Robert Simpson used when he rejected the plaintiffs’ request to halt the law, said David Gersch, the challengers’ lead lawyer.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Neither Easy Nor Free | Huffington Post

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday kicking a challenge to the state’s new voter ID law back to a lower court that already approved it may force a close look at state efforts to issue identification for voters. When that lower court upheld the strict voter ID law on Aug. 15, Judge Robert Simpson said state initiatives to educate voters and create a form of identification that can be used to vote made it unlikely that the law would disenfranchise voters. When Simpson takes up the case again, he likely will look closely at Pennsylvania’s efforts. He will find what state officials say are sincere attempts to reach registered voters. And he will find signs of serious trouble. Few of the 2 percent of Pennsylvania voters who did not have state-issued ID when the law was passed have been able to obtain it, despite programs that state officials say are free and easy.

Pennsylvania: State Supreme Court sends Voter ID back to lower court | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to revisit its decision that allowed the new voter ID law to remain in effect for the November elections. If Commonwealth Court finds the state’s implementation of the law will disenfranchise voters in November, the high court has ordered it to issue an injunction. In its decision not to stop the law immediately, the high court ruled that Commonwealth Court relied on judgments about how the state would educate voters and provide access to acceptable forms of identification. The justices wrote that lawmakers have made “an ambitious effort” to put the photo identification requirement in place by the upcoming elections but that state agencies face “serious operational constraints” in doing so. Given that, the justices wrote, they are not satisfied with a decision based on assurances of what the state will do to ensure all voters have acceptable identification.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law sends non-drivers on a bureaucratic journey | The Washington Post

Cheryl Ann Moore stepped into the state’s busiest driver’s licensing center, got a ticket with the number C809 on it and a clipboard with a pen attached by rubber band, and began her long wait Thursday to become a properly documented voter. Six blocks away, inside an ornate and crowded City Hall courtroom, a lawyer was arguing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the state’s controversial new voter ID law would strip citizens of their rights and should be enjoined. Just outside, on Thomas Paine Plaza, the NAACP president was inveighing against a modern-day poll tax at a boisterous rally of a few hundred opponents. Moore bent over a folding table and carefully filled out the form a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation worker had given her, in the first line she would stand in that day. Her ticket was time-stamped 11:38 a.m. and gave an estimated wait time of 63 minutes, which, said Moore, didn’t seem so bad. She had been registered to vote since she was 19, and now she was 54.

Pennsylvania: Battery life of ES&S iVotronic voting machines in doubt before election | Citizens Voice

Luzerne County officials discussed concerns Wednesday that batteries for electronic voting machines bought in 2006 could be dying. Tom Pizano, acting director of elections, said he wants the county to start heating the warehouse that stores the 850 touch-screen machines so the temperature doesn’t dip below 55 degrees. Storing the machines in cold temperatures shortens the lives of the batteries, Pizano said at Wednesday’s board of elections meeting. But the county typically doesn’t heat the voting-machine warehouse until after the general election in November, Pizano said. He said he didn’t like a suggestion to use gas-fueled portable heaters in the warehouse because of fumes and because areas nears heaters would get too hot. New batteries for the voting machines would cost more than $60,000, voting machine technician David Bartuski said.

Pennsylvania: At voter-ID hearing, justices have tough questions and a surprise | Philadelphia Inquirer

The state Supreme Court’s long-awaited hearing on Pennsylvania’s voter-ID law was going pretty much as expected when Justice Thomas G. Saylor, a white-haired veteran jurist from Somerset County, brought a new issue into the long-running controversy. He’d been reading the law himself, Saylor told chief deputy attorney general John G. Knorr 3d, and he questioned whether the commonwealth was actually following the precise requirements of the voter-ID law passed last March – specifically, a provision that requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to provide a nondriver photo ID card to any registered voter who swears that he needs it for voting purposes. To the surprise of many in the standing-room-only courtroom in City Hall, Knorr agreed with the justice.

Pennsylvania: High court takes hard look at voter ID law | Philadelphia Inquirer

Pennsylvania’s state Supreme Court justices on Thursday aggressively questioned whether a politically charged law requiring photo identification from each voter should take effect for the Nov. 6 presidential election and whether it guarantees the right to vote. With the election just 54 days away, the justices did not say when they will decide, although lawyers in the case expected them to rule before the end of September. The high court appeal follows a lower court’s refusal last month to halt the law from taking effect. The law , championed by Republicans over the objections of Democrats , is now part of the heated election-year political rhetoric in the presidential swing state and has inspired protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Now In Hands Of State’s Partisan High Court | Huffington Post

The legal team fighting Pennsylvania’s restrictive new voter identification law asked the state’s Supreme Court on Thursday to at least postpone until after November the measure that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, many of them minorities. “There’s too little time, there’s too many people affected and there’s no place in the statute that guarantees that qualified electors can get the ID they need to vote,” said David P. Gersch, representing the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups. The three Democratic justices noted the nonexistence of the voter fraud the law is ostensibly designed to prevent, and repeatedly asked lawyers representing the state’s Republican-led legislature and Republican governor, “What’s the rush?” But even if the nation’s top courts were once a place where partisan differences were overcome, these days they are more likely to be one more place for partisan battles. On Thursday, the three Republican Supreme Court justices gave little indication that they would overrule a district court decision last month that let the law stand. In case of a tie, the lower court ruling would remain in effect.