The voter ID ruling: A poison pill
Under the standard set by the state Supreme Court in remanding Pennsylvania's contested voter ID law to Commonwealth Court, there never can be such a law in Penn's Wood.
The high court, ruling 4-2 on Tuesday, gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to determine if the state is providing “liberal” access to new photo ID cards or if any voter will be unable to cast a ballot because of the voter ID law. (It was Judge Simpson who, in August, declined to enjoin the law's implementation.)
But by the Supreme Court's standard, any voter — perhaps someone who's never voted and has no intention of voting but is recruited by any anti-voter ID sympathizers? — effectively can scotch the law.
The fix is in.
Surely if Simpson upholds his original ruling, the ACLU will produce a perpetual supply of “disenfranchised voters” in a perpetual line of appeals.
Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling is a poison pill bordering on a Hobson's choice that will guarantee that elections in Pennsylvania will continue to be loosey-goosey affairs.
Gee, what's next, an orchestrated attack on voter registration because a potential registrant supposedly doesn't have “access” to a readily available voter registration form?
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.