Quick Note: Republican Sponsored Voter ID Law Struck Down in Pennsylvania

On Friday, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down the central element of that state's strict voter ID law--the picture ID requirement. "Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal."

His argument is interesting in that, he doesn't say requiring a photo ID is wrong, but bases his judgement on the fact that the state does not mandate that acquiring a voter ID be convenient and available to voters.  "As a constitutional prerequisite, any voter ID law must contain a mechanism for ensuring liberal access to compliant photo IDs so that the requirement...does not disenfranchise valid voters."

He stated there are 9300 poling locations in Pennsylvania, but the state issued voter photo IDs only at 71 licensing centers with limited hours, making it logistically difficult for many voters to get the required ID.  He called the state's $5 million education efforts "largely ineffective and consistently confusing" and cited "overwhelming evidence" that hundreds of thousands of qualified voters lack IDs that comply with the law.  

The state argued that the voter ID law was necessary to combat voter fraud; but when asked to present evidence of fraud, state attorneys said they had no specific examples.

Opponents of the law argued that the vast majority of voters who lack the required IDs are senior citizens and poorer minorities who tend to vote Democrat, and without evidence of fraud, the law is simply an "act of voter suppression."

The law was passed by the Republican controlled legislature and signed by Governor Tom Corbett (R) in 2012, with every single Democratic legislator voting against it.  The law was stayed for that year's election in order to allow the case to be heard.

It is expected that the case will be appealed to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court; but it is doubtful that it can be decided before the May primary election.

Representative Daryl D. Metcalfe (R), who sponsored of the bill, called Judge McGinley's ruling "an activist ruling by a partisan Democrat judge." He said that just because the law may impose a burden on some voters "doesn't give you a reason to (disregard) the voice of the people" as expressed through the people's representatives in the state legislature.

Rather, I would call the law an activist law passed by one partisan component of the legislature over the obvious objection of the other party and in complete disregard of any voice but its own.   

Voting is a fundamental right in this country. No one should be permitted to make exercising it a burden.