Pennsylvania ID Law Places Undue Burden on Voters, Judge Rules in Striking It Down
Pennsylvania's law requiring voters to show identification is unconstitutional, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley ruled Friday. Civil rights groups applauded the decision, but the implications for similar laws in other parts of the country may be limited.
In a move cheered by civil rights groups, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley ruled Friday that a law requiring Pennsylvania voters to show identification is unconstitutional.
McGinley wrote that the measure, signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in March 2012, did not further the goal of free and fair elections, citing “overwhelming evidence” that hundreds of thousands of qualified voters lacked the needed identification.
The matter likely now heads to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Guardian explores the decision’s possible impact on similar laws in other states:
Although the ruling was a significant one for Pennsylvania’s 8.2 million voters, legal scholars said it had only limited implications for the rest of the country, where similar laws have passed from state to state.
The crux of the ruling was that Pennsylvania had failed to fulfill its promise of providing “liberal access” to a photo identification that would be accepted at the ballot box.
“My initial reading is that this is a great victory for opponents of voter ID laws, but it is very state-specific,” said William Yeomans, a former chief of staff in the Justice Department who is now a professor at American University in Washington.
— Posted by Donald Kaufman.
Your support matters…Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.
You can help level the playing field. Become a member.
Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.
Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.
It falls short of first recommendation after extraordinary Justice Department actions in case involving lying to Congress in Russia probe.
In a case likely to affect others, the corporate giant is told to pay $572 million after state says it misstated drug's effects out of greed.
The U.S. judicial system routinely provides unfair trials and coerces defendants—often poor people of color, and often innocent—into accepting plea deals that call for brutally long sentences.
In a stinging dissent, Bernette Johnson calls her colleagues' decision to uphold the verdict “outrageous” and “ridiculous.”
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.