Photo ID voting law ads yanked in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania officials are pulling radio and television advertisements aimed at promoting the state's photo ID voting law.
The Department of State is working on a revamped campaign in light of a Commonwealth Court decision, department spokesman Ron Ruman said Wednesday.
Judge Robert Simpson on Tuesday upheld the essence of the law, which requires voters to present photo identification at their polling places. But people without ID will be able to vote in the Nov. 6 general election, according to his decision. It says the ID requirement should go into full effect for following election cycles.
The state hopes broadcast stations “have already or will very shortly” remove advertisements to avoid mixed messages, Ruman said.
Billboards also will be removed, though it was not clear whether the state's ad agency will replace them.
State officials budgeted $5 million to design and implement the public awareness campaign, relying on federal money. They chose Harrisburg-based Bravo Group and Red House Communications in the South Side this year to spearhead outreach and advertising.
The Department of State does not know how much recasting the broadcast spots will cost, Ruman said. A production agency would determine that, he said, “and we are still working on what the revamped spots will be.”
“We have a little money left to cover some additional costs,” Ruman wrote in an email. He said yanking ads now may somewhat reduce overall expenses, “which could help cover additional production costs.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Fire damages state Rep. Ryan Warner’s office in North Union
- Plum officials: District won’t inhibit ‘constitutionally protected speech’
- Steelers receiver Brown attends workouts despite previous comments
- Grand jury presentment: AG Kane lied, attempted to cover up leak
- Man found dead in Lower Burrell
- Special events planned as part of Kennywood’s 2015 season
- Lawyers donate thousands of dollars to Pennsylvania Supreme Court race
- Injured Penguins optimistic about returning next season
- Crosby, Malkin want to remain in Pittsburgh
- Penn Hills sewer lines to be inspected, repaired
- State jumps in UPMC-Highmark dispute