Updated on
Summary Pennsylvania's law has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights ahead of presidential election.
One of the toughest of a new wave of U.S. state laws requiring voters to show photo identification to cast ballots was put on hold Tuesday, as a judge postponed Pennsylvanias controversial voter ID law in a decision that could help President Barack Obama in a key battleground state.Pennsylvanias 6-month-old law has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights ahead of the presidential election. About a dozen primarily Republican-controlled states have toughened voter ID laws since the 2008 presidential election. But states with the toughest rules going into effect including Kansas and Tennessee arent battleground states, making their impact on the presidential election unclear.Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson delayed Pennsylvanias voter ID requirement from taking effect this election, saying he wasnt sure the state had made it possible for voters to easily get IDs before Nov. 6. I am still not convinced ... that there will be no voter disenfranchisement if the law took effect immediately, Simpson wrote.Independent polls show a persistent lead for Obama over Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the state, but pollsters have said the requirement for voters to show a valid ID could mean that fewer people, especially young adults, blacks and Hispanics, the elderly, poor and disabled, end up voting. In the past, lower turnouts in Pennsylvania have benefited Republicans.A top state lawmaker boasted to a Republican dinner in June that the ID requirement is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Publicly, Republicans have justified the law as a protection against potential voter fraud.The law had faced protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives as the laws opponents including Democrats, civil rights groups and labor unions began collecting stories of people who had no valid photo ID and faced stiff barriers in their efforts to get one.The judges decision Tuesday could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, but it could easily be the final word on the law before the Nov. 6 election. The ruling also allows the law to go into full effect next year.Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who had championed the law, said he was leaning against an appeal of the decision. Democrats have used opposition to the law as a rallying cry to motivate volunteers and campaign contributions. They accused Republicans of trying to steal the White House from Obama by making it harder for young adults, the poor, minorities and the disabled to vote.In a statement, the Obama campaign said the decision means that eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state. The states Republican Party chairman, Rob Gleason, said he was disappointed.Despite the empty rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is still about ensuring one person, one vote, Gleason said.The plaintiffs a group of registered voters, plus the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had sought to block the law from taking effect in this years election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.The constitutionality of the law, however, was not a question before the judge, who was under orders from a higher court to postpone the law if he thought anyone eligible would be unable to cast a ballot because of it. Simpson ruled after listening to two days of testimony about the states efforts to ease requirements, as well as accounts of long lines and ill-informed clerks at drivers license centers.On Nov. 6, election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can vote on a regular voting machine and will not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials after the election.Lawyers for the plaintiffs called the judges decision a win, but they said they would ask the state to end or change a multimillion-dollar ad campaign about the voter ID requirement to reflect the judges ruling.Otherwise there is a possibility of confusion by voters, and folks without ID may just stay home because they wrongly believe they need ID, said Witold J. Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. It could create confusion among poll workers, and any time you have confusion on Election Day, its not good for democracy. Other states face similar debates over voting.
