The voter ID ruling: A poison pill

| Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012, 1:50 p.m.

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?

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.


Show commenting policy