Why Judge Simpson Delayed Voter ID Law

A look at the injunction against the Voter ID Law.

Judge Robert Simpson issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday morning, halting certain aspects of the Voter ID Law from impacting the November presidential election.

While the decision does not repeal the law that requires citizens to show photo identification to vote, if upheld, the ruling allows registered voters to cast ballots without an ID. 

To issue an injunction on the law, Simpson was tasked to consider two questions—does the issuance of IDs "comport with liberal access" that the General Assembly required, and will no voter disenfranchisement exist if the law is implemented this fall?

Liberal Access?

In returning the case to Simpson, the commonwealth's Supreme Court said then-current procedures were "contrary" to liberal access—a directive from the General Assembly.

Essentially, people had to travel at least twice to state facilities to receive free IDs. Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation eased that requirement to allow people to get IDs in one trip—with the Department of State on-hand to verify voter registration.

Although state officials testified that this will ensure people receive IDs, Simpson wrote he rejected it for three reasons:

  • 1. It relies on "assurances of government officials," which the Supreme Court disagreed with;
  • 2. The five-week run-up time to Election Day is too short;
  • 3. Officials testified that there was a potential for "unforeseen problems which impede implementation...

"For these reasons, I cannot conclude the proposed changes cure the deficiency in liberal access identified by the Supreme Court," Simpson wrote.

No Disenfranchisement

In the original ruling, Simpson doubted arguments against the law on the ability to close the gap between eligible voters and those without approved IDs. He felt disenfranchisement would be minimal.

However, PennDOT recently testified it issued between 9,300 and 9,500 IDs for voting, and the Department of State issued between 1,300 and 1,350. Although driver's licenses increased in that period compared to 2011, it was too "slight" for Simpson.

"I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time. For this reason, I accept (the plaintiff's) argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed," he said.

Election Day... and Beyond

Not all aspects of the Voter ID Law will be thrown out for Election Day. The plaintiffs conceded that requirements for absentee ballot (writing driver's license or Social Security numbers) do not cause injury. Additionally, poll workers can still request ID—as they did during the April primary. However, Simpson's ruling allows people to vote come Election Day without providing photo identification.

The preliminary injunction will only last until the general election. Simpson's interpretation of the Supreme Court's directive was to rule only on certain aspects of the law. As it stands now, he will later rule on a permanent injunction after the election. A status hearing is set for Dec. 13. 

Just because Simpson delayed implementation does not mean he rejects the Voter ID Law. In his opinion, he credited Pennsylvania agencies with streamlining the birth date validation process, creating a help line and extending hours.

"These existing structural improvements, together with the proposed enhanced access to the DOS ID and additional time, will place the Commonwealth in a better position going forward," he wrote.

Read the Voter ID Law decision in the attached document.

John Q. Public October 03, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Mildred, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil. Our NO SNITCHIN culture is deeply ingrained in the city. Poll workers there do not report fraud, but yes, celebrate it. ID won't stop fraud, but it might reduce it to an insignificant number. Not this year, but there's hope for the future.
CyD252 October 03, 2012 at 11:27 AM
On the other hand, is it worth enacting measures to stop a few hundred instances of voter fraud, if the measure has the potential to stop a few *thousand* legitimate voters from casting ballots? If you're serious about preserving the integrity of our voting system, then each instance of disenfranchisement is every bit as detrimental as an instance of voter fraud. Therefore, if the number of disenfranchised legitimate voters is higher than any available estimates of cases of voter ID fraud, then the measure is faulty.
Donna Toner October 03, 2012 at 11:40 AM
PA is corrupt, they have confused all of the people who do not understand this, and I predict will not vote because of it. I will be very happy when Mitt Romney wins this state and Ohio to kick Obama and his corrupt associates out of office.
Dogman October 03, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Really Mildred? You should have no probelm providing links to any video of those interviews if they actually occured.
Electionnut October 03, 2012 at 02:35 PM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »