Strict Voter ID Blocked for 2012 - But What About the Future?

Share
Copy
On Oct. 2, a commonwealth judge blocked Pennsylvania's strict voter ID law from going into effect. Judge Robert Simpson issued a preliminary injunction against the law, saying he was unconvinced that Pennsylvania could implement the law in the remaining five weeks before the general election in a way that would not disenfranchise voters.

The judge noted that the "offending activity" was not the actual request to produce photo ID, but the ability of the state to make sure that voters weren't being disenfranchised for this election.

But what chance does the law have of going into effect after the election?

David S. Cohen, a constitutional law expert at Drexel University, said the judge has already set a hearing schedule in 2013 for challengers who want him to issue a permanent injunction against the law.

"Simpson's ruling was limited to deciding that in the short time frame the law cannot be implemented," Cohen said. "The attorneys still have to put on a full case about why this law is a problem. Simpson has not seen that evidence nor has he ruled on it."

And will the judge uphold it?

"The lawyer in me says it is too early to tell because they still have a full case to lawyer," Cohen said. "The political observer in me thinks that Simpson has shown his hand and thinks that this law is fine."

State judges enjoined two challenges to Wisconsin's law, which will remain off the books at least through the next election.

However, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Hollen issued a statement saying, "I continue to believe that the voter ID law is constitutional and I will continue the battle to have the law upheld."

Texas and South Carolina involve different challenges altogether. Those states -- because of their history of voter discrimination -- must have federal officials in Washington approve any changes to voting laws under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The burden is on the state to show that the new law won't have a negative effect on minorities.

The three-judge court hearing the Texas case said that law would impose burdens on the poor but left open the possibility that other, less-restrictive laws could be upheld in states covered by Section 5.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott expressed disappointment that the ruling would mean the law wouldn't be used for the next election, but he vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court. Abbott argued that his state and several others covered by Section 5 should no longer be forced to meet a higher burden on issues such as voter ID laws.

South Carolina's law was passed in May 2011 and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley. In a statement released after the Oct. 10 ruling, the Department of Justice stressed that the court had required broad modifications in the law in order to respond to government concerns that the law would exclude minority voters.

The author of the opinion, Judge Brett D. Kavanaugh, referenced a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that upheld an Indiana voter ID law. Kavanaugh pointed out that the legal cases are different because Indiana is not a covered jurisdiction under Section 5. But he said the decision "remains instructive" because Indiana's law had stricter requirements.

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...