Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Not all heroes wear capes.

T R E 4 5 O N

You are here: Home / Right to Vote / Vote Like Your Country Depends On It / Pennsylvania Judge Halts Voter ID Law!!!! [updated 2x]

Pennsylvania Judge Halts Voter ID Law!!!! [updated 2x]

by | 100 Comments

This post is in: 

This is four exclamation mark news!!! !

This is fucking fantastic:

10:32AM EST October 2. 2012 – A Pennsylvania judge is putting a halt to the state’s voter identification law, ordering today that it not be enforced for the presidential election just five weeks away.

The ruling by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson could be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court. Simpson’s ruling says the law — requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID — would be fully implemented next year.

This is wonderful, outstanding, marvelous news. I am going to read the ruling and will update this post with the legal deets.

For now, it’s pop champagne time for voters in Pennsylvania.

UPDATE: There’s been some concern about what exactly this ruling means. Without getting into the legal weeds, it means that the sections of the voter ID law that might have disenfranchised up to 750,000 voters are enjoined from enforcement for the November 6 election. Pennsylvanians without voter ID will be able to cast normal — not provisional — ballots. Poll workers will still be able to ask for voter ID, and that might cause some disenfranchisement (to the extent a voter runs screaming into the street after merely being asked for an ID, a scenario that can’t be entirely ruled out, I suppose), but not nearly as much as the requirement that voters without ID cast provisional ballots and then provide proof of identification within six days after election day.

So here’s how it works: A voter walks up to the table where the poll workers sit with the voter rolls. The poll worker asks you for ID. If you have it, you give it to the poll worker, then go into the voting booth and cast a regular ballot. if you don’t have it, you say, I don’t have one.” The poll worker says, “OK” and you go into the voting booth and cast a regular ballot.

A status conference has been set for December 13, 2012 at which point the fight becomes about whether or not the voter ID law should be enforced for future elections.

Unless I’m missing something, this is excellent news. I will update this post further with actual language from the ruling, but if I don’t take my dog out for his morning pee, he’s going to stab me in my sleep.

UPDATE 2: I’ve updated the post again and included my mark-up of the ruling. You’re going to have to click, people.
[cross-posted at ABLC]

Reader Interactions

100Comments

  1. 1.

    jibeaux

    That is good news. I am very glad that PA was apparently so proactive in getting people the correct IDs, however, because it will be in effect for future elections. The plaintiffs really didn’t challenge the concept of voter ID so much as they did the rushed and very flawed implementation of it for this year’s election.

  5. 5.

    eric

    @jibeaux: that is because the plaintiffs are democrats in tune with Obama’s forced police state tactics to garner national voting ids so the government can track what it believes are subversive types and so drones can target those radicals from the microchip in the ids. wake up sheeple.

  6. 6.

    PeakVT

    I think this is the relevant passage from the decision:

    Similarly, I reject the Respondents’ post-hearing argument that apossible remedy is to enjoin only operation of the disenfranchisement language added by Act 18 to Section 1210(a.4)(5)(ii) of the Election Code, discussed above. Thus, Respondents suggest that a qualified elector be asked to produce proof of identification, but be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. This argument fails to acknowledge the General Assembly’s express intent that during the transition into full implementation of Act 18, an otherwise qualified elector need not cast a provisional ballot.

    I read that to mean that provisional ballots will not be taken.

  8. 8.

    hueyplong

    The PA Obama campaign will still have work to do to stay within the ruling, but if I were betting, I’d say that the number of votes cost by the law as now being implemented will be far enough below Obama’s polling lead that PA might stop being a state that causes the level of indigestion it has caused since the GOP guy got up on video and bragged about how its passage would deliver the state to Mitt Romney.

  9. 9.

    Violet

    Just checked TPM. They said:

    A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday issued a ruling on the state’s voting law that will allow poll workers to ask for photo identification but will still allow voters to cast provisional ballots without subsequently having to show an ID.

    That’s crappier than it sounded when I heard the news on the radio.

  11. 11.

    eldorado

    via think progress

    Buried in the opinion is a line establishing that the requirement that voters without IDs cast only provisional ballots will also not be in effect during the November election. After describing a “transition” provision from January 1, 2012 until September 17, 2012 where voters who do not show ID may cast a ballot “without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot,” the judge concludes that “the injunction will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of Act 18 through the general election.” The impact of this line is that voters without ID will cast normal, not provisional, ballots this November, but they will still be asked for ID.

  12. 12.

    Legalize

    @PeakVT:
    That’s how I read it. Officials can still ask for ID, but if an elector doesn’t present an ID, she still gets to vote in person. Otherwise qualified electors, i.e. those who are valid electors whether or not they have ID, do not have to cast a provisional ballot.

  13. 13.

    David in NY

    @PeakVT:

    That would make more sense.

    Otherwise, the voter without ID gets challenged and files a provisional ballot. Then what? It gets counted? It gets thrown out?

    But what’s an “otherwise qualified elector”?

  16. 16.

    Comrade Mary

    @Violet: I’ve been reporting on TPM’s reporting in the thread below. Basically, they’re really confused and self-contradictory.

    I’ll wait for the in house lawyers to read this over and give us more context.

  18. 18.

    PeakVT

    The fact that that poll workers can still ASK for an ID will lead to some scattered disenfranchisement, I think, but not anything close to what was going to happen.

  20. 20.

    David in NY

    Occurs to me that the law (as a matter of federal statutory or constitutional law) really ought to be that a voter without ID who is “otherwise qualified” ought to be able to file a provisional ballot that will be counted within a week unless someone comes forward with evidence that the voter is not qualified. But that’s obviously not what the Sup Ct has decided so far.

  23. 23.

    Bobby Thomson

    A provisional ballot is only marginally better than no ballot at all. They aren’t counted on election night (if ever) and are subject to challenge. This is not a win.

  24. 24.

    Gex

    Excellent. You can’t change the rules mid-game, you have to change the rules for the next game so everyone knows what they are. Having one team ask for rule changes in the middle of the game should be seen as a clear attempt to skew the rules in their favor.

  25. 25.

    JGabriel

    Imani @ Top:

    This is wonderful, outstanding, marvelous news. I am going to read the ruling and will update this post with the legal deets.

    Yes, read the decision and get back to us. I’m not convinced that this is good news yet. Reporting on the decision has been a bit confusing so far, which seems to reflect problems in the decision itself.

    For instance, what does it mean to “cast provisional ballots without subsequently having to show an ID”? In that instance, upon what is acceptance of the ballot provisioned? That is to say, if photo ID is not required for provisional ballot acceptance, then why require it at the polling booth? What purpose is served by asking people, for whom getting a photo ID was was burdensome or not possible, to jump through extra post-election hoops to get their vote counted?

    It seems confusing and just as burdensome as it was originally, but time-shifts the problems to election day and after, rather than election day and before.

    .

  26. 26.

    Josie

    TPM has a correction note at the end of the article:

    “Correction: This post has been updated to show that voters who don’t have voter ID will still be allowed to cast a regular ballot in the Nov. 6 election.”

  27. 27.

    PeakVT

    @David in NY: What I got from the first summaries was that people without IDs would cast provisional ballots, which would then NOT be disqualified for someone failing to show up with ID. That didn’t make much sense and, fortunately, was wrong.

  28. 28.

    JGabriel

    __
    __
    Josie:

    TPM has a correction note at the end of the article: “This post has been updated to show that voters who don’t have voter ID will still be allowed to cast a regular ballot in the Nov. 6 election.”

    Ah. I think that would probably invalidate my concerns and criticisms above then.

    .

  30. 30.

    geg6

    @Bobby Thomson:

    That’s not what the ruling says. This is a misreading of the decision.

    Which seems to be the fault of TPM, as far as I can tell. No one else is reporting that way. Looks like TPM has pulled a CNN.

  32. 32.

    piratedan

    so it boils down to they can ask for ID, but regardless of whether you have one or not, a regular ballot will be used if you’re found on the rolls.

  33. 33.

    geg6

    So happy about this!

    We will all continue the drive to get everyone photo id, but we now have a year to do it. This is fantastic.

  35. 35.

    hueyplong

    It’s possible that what you see is essentially an ID-less person casting a provisional ballot that isn’t subject to the regular “provisional ballot” rules.

    In other words, it gets counted.

    [Let’s face it, if the no-ID ballot were “regular” in every way, how would the state know who is supposed to file something in the next 6 days after the election?]

    And if the construct is really anything like the above, no wonder people are getting confused when they read the opinion.

    It’s possible one or both sides files a motion for clarification that is a thinly veiled motion to amend the order put in place today. It would be in the GOP’s interest to keep the uncertainty going.

  36. 36.

    Culture of Truth

    I believe it is good news, and pretty much required by the higher court’s previous ruling.

  37. 37.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Mack: I don’t like Ed Rendell, but I suspect he and his allies will be all over the ground game. Then he’ll go back to pimping Simpson-Bowles and tracking. We go to war with the allies we have, et cetera, et cetera

  38. 38.

    smintheus

    I wonder whether the state will now be forced to run TV ads saying that IDs are not required. Recently, just about the time that the Supreme Court kicked the case back down to the lower court, Corbett’s administration began running ads telling voters that “If you want to vote you’ve got to show it”…i.e., you need an ID (pretty insulting way to phrase it, naturally).

  39. 39.

    Ash Can

    If this ruling really does take provisional ballots out of the picture for people with no IDs, then I agree it’s a real win, and will celebrate accordingly! :)

  40. 40.

    amk

    @piratedan: Yup. Though it was dickish of the judge to allow ‘polling officials’ aka thugs to ask for an unneeded ID. Sure some voters might be turned off but I bet dem poll watchers will be at the scene to make sure they’re turned on again.

  41. 41.

    David in NY

    Just saw a Facebook post by executive director of ACLU Philly. They’re trying to figure out what the decision’s “parameters” are. Which means they don’t know what it means either.

  42. 42.

    Violet

    @piratedan:

    so it boils down to they can ask for ID, but regardless of whether you have one or not, a regular ballot will be used if you’re found on the rolls.

    That’s what it sounds like. Kind of pointless to ask for an ID, then.

    “I need to see your ID.”
    “I don’t have one.”
    “Okay. No problem. You can vote anyway.”

    Why should poll workers bother to ask?

  44. 44.

    japa21

    @Violet:

    Why should poll workers bother to ask?

    Because the requirement will be in place next year. When a voter doesn’t have the ID, the poll worker is supposed to inform them of the need for one next year.

  46. 46.

    gelfling545

    @Violet: Really. This seems to just be annoying people to no good purpose and possibly opening the door to some harassment if the “wrong type” of people insist on voting.

  47. 47.

    Ash Can

    @Violet: I can see them making it into a “you can vote as usual this time, but next time you’ll need ID” thing. Still bullshit because of the whole ID issue, but nowhere near as damaging as making the voters use provisional ballots or preventing them from voting altogether.

    ETA: I see japa21 beat me to it.

  48. 48.

    Comrade Mary

    @Violet: One interpretation I’ve seen: poll workers are allowed but not required to ask for ID. So it seems likely that poll workers in Democratic districts won’t ask at all, while workers in Republican districts almost certainly will ask (and be various degrees of dickish about it). This could have a suppressive effect on some Democratic voters in those districts, but it could also turn away some Republicans, so maybe they won’t ask at all.

  49. 49.

    piratedan

    @amk: agreed, and the True the Vote folks will try and put an emphasis on this, up to the good guys to cool them out. Still, votes can be cast and they will be treated as votes, no caveats, no special handling, no provisions, just votes.

  50. 50.

    mish

    This ruling makes the rules for voting the same as during the primary in PA. Workers ask if you have ID, but you are allowed to vote with a regular ballot whether you show your ID or not. Any voter can choose to show their ID or not.

    As I have mentioned before, my child worked as the clerk on primary day and asked to see my ID when I came to vote. I declined to show her my ID at that time and I will decline to show it this November as well. Because I can.

  52. 52.

    Punchy

    Affidavits to be signed for those lacking ID? That sounds like a piece of paper will be needed, for which an unexpected short supply of those will be present on Election Day, and dammit, every copy machine in a 50 mile radius is suddenly broken.

    They’ll find a way to fuck these voters. You watch.

  54. 54.

    Nylund

    From what I read, it sounds like poll workers can demand to see your ID. If you don’t have one, they have to let you cast a normal ballot anyway.

    I see a lot of potential for problems there. Either poll workers or voters may not understand this.

    I fear that poll workers may intimidate legal voters into not voting (or mistakenly insisting they cast provisional ballots), and/or voters starting fights with poll workers who demand to see IDs.

    In short, a technical legal victory, but one that will likely cause a giant mess on election day.

  55. 55.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Violet: in WI, people were asked for ID last year and allowed to vote as part of “soft implementation” – basically it was intended to be a reminder to bring ID in the future. Or to get ID if they didn’t have one.

    @amk: Where do you get the idea that polling officials are thugs? They tend to be retired people who are trying to do their best.

  56. 56.

    Culture of Truth

    so it boils down to they can ask for ID, but regardless of whether you have one or not, a regular ballot will be used if you’re found on the rolls.

    This is they way the statute designed the system to work during it’s ‘trial run’ period, Jan-Sept 2012, so the judge left it in place.

    It’s a voter intimidation education program.

  57. 57.

    Punchy

    but one that will likely cause a giant mess on election day.

    Feature not bug. And all those Democrat-based parties outside polling places informing the voters? BLACK PANTHER UNION THUGZ INTIMIDATIN’ ALL DA WIMMENZ!

    Where do I lay $100 on odds that PA is now going be a “stolen” election, per Fox News?

  59. 59.

    Bobby Thomson

    I’d like to see the specific statutory provisions that the order enjoins to make sure that the judge hasn’t actually just prevented people from voting at all, provisionally or not. I have yet to see commentary on this from the people I expect and trust to understand it.

  62. 62.

    shortstop

    @amk: There’s a great variation in the quality of election judges. Some are fantastic and take their charge quite seriously. A number of them are really not very bright and have no idea what the laws/guidelines are, nor do they do the required preparation. I don’t know that I would characterize that as “thuggish,” because their intentions seem to be good, but many of them are just not up to the simple job.

  63. 63.

    geg6

    @Ash Can:

    That’s what they said during the primaries here. They asked for the ID, let you vote normally without it, and told you it would be needed for the general election.

  64. 64.

    danimal

    I’m provisionally happy. Now all we need to do is use all the GOP blarney to our advantage and press for free, national ID cards that are easily available for the entire population (even rural areas, elderly residences and…gasp!… minority neighborhoods). If they really believed their own voter ID BS, they’d support the project. But they don’t and they won’t, so they’ll move on to another bright, shiny object that captures their attention.

  65. 65.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @geg6: I was in the field during elections in 2011, what you described is exactly what poll workers in WI were doing. It is not that complicated to get the word to poll workers to do exactly what they did for the last election. Hell, 3/4 of them are probably doing what they did back in 1952 when they first got trained.

  68. 68.

    JGabriel

    Imani @ Top:

    So here’s how it works: A voter walks up to the table where the poll workers sit with the voter rolls. The poll worker asks you for ID. If you have it, you give it to the poll worker, then go into the voting booth and cast a regular ballot. if you don’t have it, you say, I don’t have one.” The poll worker says, “OK” and you go into the voting booth and cast a regular ballot.

    Alternate Scenario:

    A voter walks up to the table where the poll workers sit with the voter rolls. The poll worker asks for ID.
    __
    If the voter doesn’t have it, she or he says, “I don’t have one. Do I need it?”
    __
    The poll worker, under the watchful observation of a GOP lawyer, says, “Well, the law says we need to ask for it.”
    __
    The voter says, “Oh.” And walks away — never realizing that just because the poll worker needs to ask for ID, it doesn’t mean the voter needs to have it.

    I hope there’s a Democratic lawyer at every polling station in PA to counter that type of scenario.

    .

  69. 69.

    hueyplong

    Here is where I think the confusion arises: At one point of the opinion PDF I read, the judge refers to crossouts (deletions) and underscores (additions) that he has in mind, then puts in block quote form the provisions. If some of the underscores (about filing a subsequent affidavit, etc.) should actually be crossouts and are intended to be crossouts, then it’s consistent with his text elsewhere and the following is in fact what’s going on:

    1. Poll worker asks for ID.

    2. Regardless of whether the voter has ID, the voter is entitled to vote and it’s on a regular ballot.

    If that’s all that’s going on, then an appropriate response by the ID-less voter is “Don’t have an ID; please give me a ballot.” Then that person votes and, only after that, goes home.

  70. 70.

    rb

    @Violet: Why should poll workers bother to ask?

    So that people who are standing in line and overhear the asking are persuaded to leave without even approaching the table.

    Baby steps. We can’t get all these moochers off the rolls in one fell purge.

  72. 72.

    Todd

    Remember how the Birchers used to get the right up in arms over the issue of standardized, universal national ID as being Satanic tyranny?

    Smooth fucking pivot.

    They should have been up front about skin color being the only ID that mattered.

  73. 73.

    Randy P

    I think this favorable interpretation is correct, but I’m waiting for the ACLU to post their writeup at their blog. They’ve been really good at explaining the legal stuff all along. They’re the ones who brought the lawsuit.

    http://aclupa.blogspot.com

  74. 74.

    geg6

    Tweety will be over the moon about this. He’s been spitting mad about this for months.

    @JGabriel:

    Jeebus, I’m sure PA Dems and the ACLU and the AARP have never even considered this scenario. We better let ’em know!

    Sorry for the snark, but you’re talking about a state that has had this sword of Damocles hanging over the voting booth for months and months. And has been threatened by the True the Vote crowd as a major target of their efforts. Having worked with the groups who had been trying to get folks their IDs, I can assure you that doings in polling places will be watched very carefully by the appropriate people for the Dems.

  78. 78.

    Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    in WI, people were asked for ID last year and allowed to vote as part of “soft implementation” – basically it was intended to be a reminder to bring ID in the future. Or to get ID if they didn’t have one

    That’s pretty much how the PA primary went. Poll workers got a couple of questions (Like mine: The ID has my middle name spelled out, the registration has an initial. Will that be a problem?). That was about it.

  79. 79.

    Randy P

    @shortstop: I’m not sure Simpson gets much praise. This ruling was under very strict guidelines set by the PA Supreme Court after they threw out his previous “leave it in place” decision.

  82. 82.

    lacp

    This really is excellent news. An awful lot of typical wingnut BS over at philly.com, but screw them.

  83. 83.

    DFH no.6

    This is indeed good news for the coming election in Pennsylvania, but I expect that voter ID laws are here to stay, in some fashion or another.

    In fact, I will be amazed if more states don’t join in over the coming years, particularly because the majority of Americans have little to no problem with requiring ID to vote (they by and large accept the “you have to have ID to cash a check, why not to vote?” arguments).

    Nationally, there is no Constitutional right to vote for citizens – the particulars of voting are given over to the states, though of course there are certain federal requirements that states must follow (such as the provisions for old Jim Crow states).

    We can, and should, fight the more egregious fascist voter disenfranchisements – and even work for their elimination in the (very) long-term – but we should also work to ensure that the population of likely Democratic voters who currently lack sufficient ID are able to acquire that ID, because that will be the actual “world of voting” that we’ll be living in for the foreseeable.

    Fight the fucking fascists on both fronts.

  85. 85.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @rb: Sorry, but I am at work so I don’t have enough gasoline at my desk to set my hair in fire and run around.

    Honestly, some people may hear ID being requested and leave, but this decision is a net positive.

  86. 86.

    hueyplong

    I’ll give Simpson this: Though he previously took PA at its word about how implementation would go (specifically including how easy it would be to get those IDs, etc.), after getting submissions from the parties as part of this hearing process on remand, he stated his disappointment as to how it’s actually gone since his ruling, declining to accept all their new representations.

    Assuming that the “good” reading is correct (no provisional ballots unless they would have been required for reasons other than failure to have an ID, and no requirement of any followup affidavits, etc.), PA Dems aren’t getting any less than they’d have gotten if I were the judge on this rehearing.

    I would not have precluded asking for the IDs on remand based on what the PA SCt whacked and what it didn’t.

  88. 88.

    catclub

    @hueyplong: he was also going to have to make a ruling that the PA Supreme Court would not laugh at, which is what nearly happened with his first credulous rulings.

  91. 91.

    Sophist

    Relax, Obama’s got this. The Dems have a good ground game, so I’m betting at the heels of every “True the Volk” poll observer there will be a democratic poll watcher reminding everyone they don’t need ID to vote this time.

  93. 93.

    themann1086

    Speaking only for my voting precinct’s election board, we (the 5 people in charge of running the machines at the polling place for the ~1000 voters in our precinct) are ecstatic about this. The logistics of it was giving us headaches in the spring when we did the “test run” of the law. Thank FSM I don’t have to figure it out! We won’t be asking, because it’s unnecessary and extra work for us. We barely get paid as it is, we’re not going to do dumb, pointless work.

  94. 94.

    LD50

    @mish: Yeah, ‘thugs’ are the True The Vote volunteers, shipped in to tool around in their mobility scooters intimidating brown people. But I have a sneaking suspicion that in reality they have nothing vaguely like the army of belligerent Teabaggers they boast of.

  96. 96.

    demit

    @mish: Thank you. /polling official in Phila who works a 15 hour day for so little recompense you might just as well call it volunteer work. And yes I am a little old lady

  98. 98.

    Mnemosyne

    @Todd:

    Remember how the Birchers used to get the right up in arms over the issue of standardized, universal national ID as being Satanic tyranny?

    That’s the oh-so-fun thing about Republicans — they’re still up in arms about the idea of a national ID for themselves and freak out at the mere mention of the idea. It’s all of those Other People who should be required to carry one at all times, not nice white suburbanites like themselves.

    I’m still convinced that half of the whining of conservatives is because they now have to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow and don’t get an automatic You Look White, You’re Okay waiver like they used to.

Comments are closed.