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.

Pennsylvania: Defenders of the Vote – Can a small army of volunteers prevent hundreds of thousands in Pennsylvania from losing their right to vote? | American Prospect

You know you’re in a fledgling campaign office the moment you step off the street and into one of the plainest buildings in Germantown, a mostly black Philadelphia neighborhood that contains several Colonial landmarks. Along garish, peach-colored walls are maps of every inch of the city: council districts, wards, divisions, recreation centers. Mismatched tables sit empty, waiting for soon-to-be-installed phones that volunteers will use to call number after number. In one corner of the back office, there’s even a double megaphone ready to perch atop a van and spread the message. Rather than touting a candidate, though, this campaign’s volunteers will be spreading news that they hate: Hundreds of thousands of registered voters in Philadelphia, and hundreds of thousands more across the state, are in danger of losing their voice in the November election. Welcome to the world of the Pennsylvania Voter ID Coalition, made up of 140 organizations—churches, labor unions, civic groups—which began training volunteers in July. The group’s job is to let voters know that, thanks to a law passed in March, they will have to carry a government-issued picture ID to the polls to ensure that their vote counts. The coalition will also help voters who lack the proper ID to acquire one—a process that is, in some cases, time-consuming and complicated.

Pennsylvania: Divisive voter ID law goes before Pennsylvania high court | Boston.com

With 54 days until Pennsylvanians help decide who will be president, state Supreme Court justices will listen to arguments over whether a new law requiring each voter to show valid photo identification poses an unnecessary threat to the right, and ability, to vote. The high court appeal follows a lower court’s refusal to halt the law from taking effect Nov. 6, when voters will choose between President Barack Obama, a Democrat, Republican nominee Mitt Romney and as many as two third-party candidates. The arguments will be heard on Thursday morning. The state’s lawyers say lawmakers properly exercised their constitutional latitude to make election-related laws and that every registered voter, including those suing, will be able to cast a ballot, either after getting a valid photo ID or by absentee ballot if they are disabled or frail. But lawyers for the plaintiffs insist their clients, as well as hundreds of thousands of other registered voters, do not know about the complicated requirements, do not have a valid ID or will be unable to get one. ‘‘At stake in this case is the fundamental right to vote,’’ the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued in a 58-page appeal.

Pennsylvania: High Court Set to Hear Voter-ID Law Case | Businessweek

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today over the state’s voter-ID law as a new study found almost 700,000 young, minority voters nationwide could be barred from the polls by similar statutes. Proponents argue the law, passed by Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled legislature, is needed to stop voter fraud and enhance the integrity of the election process. Voter advocacy groups say the measure is aimed at keeping some likely Democratic voters away from the polls. Laws requiring photo identification to vote in battleground states including Pennsylvania and Florida could be the deciding factor in the Nov. 6 presidential election, according to the study by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Chicago. More than 100,000 voters under the age of 30 could be barred in Florida and as many as 44,000 in Pennsylvania if the laws in those states are upheld, according to the study.

Pennsylvania: Look at the history of voter ID: A case cited to support Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law instead calls it into question | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On Thursday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will sit to decide the fate of the state's controversial new law requiring all voters to show picture ID. To understand what's at stake -- for the court's reputation as well as the voting public -- you need to know some legal history. This is not the first time the Pennsylvania high court has ruled on the constitutionality of extraordinary procedures to establish voter eligibility. In 1869, in a case called Patterson v. Barlow, the court upheld a law requiring some voters to go through bureaucratic hassles far more inconvenient than sitting for a photo at PennDOT. And the court's decision in that case is certainly relevant, because it approves burdening voters to protect election integrity, a conclusion that seems to bless the new ID requirements. Last month, a Commonwealth Court judge approved the new voter ID law, quoting at length from the old Patterson case to support the new law's constitutionality. It is this decision that the high court will review this week.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Leads to DMV Trips from ‘Hell’ | ABC News

Two government offices, three hour-long lines, two 78-mile trips, two week-long waiting periods, four forms of identity and two signed affidavits later, Pennsylvanians will be allowed to vote. Under the state's new voter ID laws,, which require every voter to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls, that is the epic process thousands of native Pennsylvanians have to go through to get the ID required to cast their ballots in November. And they now have just 56 days to complete it before the election. "It was hell all told," said Jan Klincewicz, who helped his 87-year-old mother, Jisele, through the process. "To have to go through that kind of rigmarole to exercise her right to vote I think is excessive."

Pennsylvania: Supreme Court faces key question on voter ID appeal | Philadelphia Inquirer

Many opponents of the state's voter ID law, like Bea Bookler of Devon, were shocked when Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. upheld the law in a ruling last month. "My first reaction was unprintable," Bookler, 94, one of the plaintiffs trying to get the law overturned, said in a telephone interview. "My second reaction was to get in bed and say I don't want to be alive in a world where people are prevented from voting." While Simpson turned down a bid to stop the new voter ID requirements from taking effect with the Nov. 6 election, his opinion made clear that the judge was looking over his shoulder to an appeal in the state Supreme Court, however he ruled. Simpson himself teed up what could be the a major point of contention facing the six Supreme Court justices when they hear that appeal Thursday in their Philadelphia courtroom on the fourth floor of City Hall. The issue: What level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to the legislature setting new, more stringent rules for potential voters showing up at their polling places? A relatively flexible standard, deferring to the legislature's authority to set the rules for running Pennsylvania elections? Or a strict standard, recognizing the right to vote as a fundamental civil right and putting a burden on the state to justify any new laws that might interfere with individuals trying to vote?

Pennsylvania: As other states move to early voting or online registration, Pennsylvania puts off action | Associated Press

When it comes to liberalizing voting laws, the dark ages are catching up to Pennsylvania. The decision by Pennsylvania state election officials to set aside plans for online voter registration this year ensures that Pennsylvania will lag farther behind most other states in the effort to expand access to voting and voter registration. Based on an analysis of information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, Pennsylvania is now the most populous state that has not legalized at least one of four processes that other states are increasingly adopting: online voter registration or election-day registration, early voting and no-excuse absentee balloting. New York's move last month to make online voter registration available leaves Pennsylvania among 10 states that do not allow early voting or online or election-day registration, while requiring an excuse from a voter — such as an illness or travel — to cast an absentee ballot.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law set for review by state Supreme Court | PennLive.com

Pennsylvania will take its place as a battleground state on a different political front this week as supporters and opponents argue the validity of the state’s new voter ID law before the state Supreme Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday in Philadelphia. They will be televised live on Pennsylvania Cable Network at 9:30 a.m. The six-member court — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans — will be tasked with reviewing Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson’s August ruling that permitted Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law to be implemented for the Nov. 6 election. If the justices are deadlocked, Simpson’s decisions will stand.

Pennsylvania: Native Nations’ IDs and Voting Rights Cases | New America Media

Native Nations’ IDs are both evidence and exercise of sovereignty, and they should stand on their own as validators of tribal citizens’ rights to vote in tribal, federal or state elections and to travel and return home unimpeded. This should be so for those Native Nations that issue passports to their citizens and those that issue other IDs. Whether Native people consider themselves as citizens solely of their Native Nations or as having dual citizenship, first in their Native Nations and then in the U.S., they should be on the same side as those who are opposed to overly stringent voter ID requirements by states. The Republican-led state initiatives, however nicely self-described, will most likely keep from voting the non-white, elderly, young and poor, who tend to vote for the Democrats. Or, as Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania House Majority Leader, infamously bragged in June about the Republican checklist: “Voter ID—which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania—done!” The Pennsylvania law requires voters to produce state-approved photo identification. This can impose a substantial if not complete burden on people who do not drive or who no longer have a driver’s license; have changed residences and/or last names, but haven’t updated their Social Security card or other IDs; have misplaced or do not have a birth certificate; or who have identification from other states. What about the unlucky person who lost all required papers in a fire, burglary or flight from abuse, or who lacks the means to obtain the necessary backup documents?

Pennsylvania: Challenge Process of Libertarian Petition Pauses for Determination of Some Legal Issues | Ballot Access News

After almost three weeks of Pennsylvania state court proceedings in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, approximately 41,000 signatures on the Libertarian Pennsylvania statewide petition have been processed. There are still 8,500 unprocessed signatures. “Processed” means that both sides have looked at each processed signature, and either both sides agree that the signature is valid, or both sides agree it isn’t valid, or the two sides disagree. Many of the disagreements hinge on certain unresolved legal issues, such as whether a petition signature is valid if the signer put the month and day in the “date” column, but not the year. The printed forms all says “Revised January 2012″ at the bottom, so it is obvious that all the signatures were signed in 2012. But the challengers say those signatures aren’t valid.