Judge blocks Pennsylvania from using voter ID law in November election
HARRISBURG — A state judge on Friday barred enforcement of Pennsylvania's strict voter identification law in the Nov. 5 general election.
The state also cannot require local election officials to tell voters at the polls that photo IDs could be required in future elections, but officials can distribute written material about the law, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley said.
McGinley's ruling marked the third consecutive election in which enforcement of the law has been blocked.
The constitutionality of the law is being challenged and was the subject of a 12-day trial before McGinley that ended this month.
Lawyers for the state have said the enforcement issue should be considered one election at a time — as has been the practice since the court's first order was issued just weeks before the 2012 presidential election. Enforcement was blocked in the May primary election, too.
The plaintiffs objected to any provision allowing the state to require local election officials to ask but not require voters to show photo IDs and to hand out information about the law to those who did not show identification.
The voter ID law would be one of the strictest in the nation, but it has never been implemented.
After legal jousting that reached the state Supreme Court, a judge blocked enforcement in last year's presidential election and again in this year's municipal and judicial primary because of lingering concern that it could disenfranchise voters who lacked a valid photo ID.
The 2012 law was approved without any Democratic votes by the Legislature's Republican majority and signed by GOP Gov. Tom Corbett amid a bitterly contested White House race in which Democratic President Obama carried Pennsylvania.
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 â 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.