A-K lawmakers react after judge strikes down state's voter ID law
Reaction from local lawmakers to a state judge's ruling that struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law was, predictably, right down party lines.
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley struck down the 2-year-old law, which had yet to actually be enforced.
The law required people who wanted to vote to provide photo identification at their polling place before they could cast their ballot.
McGinley said in his 103-page opinion that the law would put an unreasonable burden on citizens trying to exercise their right to vote and referred to the law as “unconstitutional on its face.”
State Rep. Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, said he is pleased by McGinley's ruling.
“This was legislation to suppress voter turnout,” Dermody said. “I'm glad the courts ruled that way.
“This was an attempt by the conservative wing of the Republican Party to influence elections,” he said.
Dermody said he believes the bill targeted specific groups of people and tried to disenfranchise them.
“They know it has an impact on senior citizens, minorities and the disabled,” he said. “It was always about vote suppression.
“But they couldn't point to a case of voter fraud in the state,” he said. “That's because there isn't voter fraud in Pennsylvania.”
Conversely, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, said McGinley's ruling was strictly a partisan one.
“I think the decision by the judge was an activist and partisan decision on his part,” he said. “He's working on behalf of the Democratic Party and not the citizens of Pennsylvania.”
Metcalfe said he hopes McGinley's ruling is appealed.
“I certainly hope the administration will appeal this,” he said, “and I hope the Supreme Court will ensure the will of the majority of Pennsylvanians is protected.
“You have to do it (show identification) to cash a check, to get on a plane, to rent a car and to harvest deer in the woods,” he said. “I worked on this for a decade. Pennsylvania is very late in coming to the table to ensure this policy is on the plate.”
State Sen. Jim Brewster, D-McKeesport, said he believed the law was completely political and wasn't intended to help Pennsylvanians.
“When Rep. Turzai said this law would help Mitt Romney win the state, it became clear this was political,” he said. “When that became part of the equation, it was obvious this wasn't intended to help citizens.”
Brewster, who is a self-proclaimed conservative Democrat, was referencing remarks made by Rep. Mike Turzai in June 2012 while speaking at a Republican State Committee meeting.
“Voter ID, which is gonna [sic] allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said in those remarks.
Brewster said he believes everyone should vote.
“I don't think we should be trying to punish an older person who's been going to the same polling place for decades and misplaces their ID,” he said. “In this day and age, we shouldn't try to dissuade people from voting.”
R.A. Monti is a freelance reporterfor Trib Total Media.
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.