The voter ID ruling: The franchise wins
It didn't take long for the whiners, wieners and warblers to whack Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson's refusal to block Pennsylvania's voter ID law as being something other than a ruling based on rock-solid legal precedents.
One outfit even smeared him as an “ideologue” employing “ideologically based” precedents.
But it's this simple:
Pennsylvania's photo Voter ID law, Act 18, “is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life” and those who oppose it did not establish “that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable.”
The fact of the matter is, it will be pretty darn easy to vote in Pennsylvania under the new law. If you don't have the prerequisite identification, it can be obtained free of charge. And even if a voter lacks the proper ID, a provisional ballot can be cast and counted if that ID is presented in short order.
“The burdens associated with Act 18,” slight as they are, “serve substantial interests to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,” Judge Simpson wrote.
And given the facts of this case, it should be quite apparent to all that the whiners, wieners and warblers fear the law and the end of loosey-goosey standards for that very reason.
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.