The voter ID ruling: Reason subverted
The good news is that a Commonwealth Court judge has kept intact most of Pennsylvania's new photo voter ID law.
The bad news is that the commonsense and most reasonable law will not be enforced during the Nov. 6 election.
But the even worse news is that the poison pill attached by the state Supreme Court last month in remanding the law to Judge Robert Simpson will be employed ad infinitum by opponents and the measure likely will be appealed to death.
Judge Simpson barred the law from being enforced next month, questioning “whether sufficient time exists for liberal access” to the prescribed identification; he remains unconvinced “that there will never be voter disenfranchisement.”
Well, anyone anywhere anytime can claim “disenfranchisement,” usually manufactured — think of former Pittsburgh Mayor Sophie Masloff's untoward bleats over the weekend — and always, always for political purposes, as we've seen in the last few months.
More than a few of the usual suspects, shouting “Voter suppression!,” already say they'll keep fighting the law.
As we editorialized last month, “the fix is in” for this “poison pill bordering on a Hobson's choice.”
Reason is supposed to be the life of the law. Unfortunately, reason in this case, for this election, has been as subverted as has been the law.
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.