The Voter ID ruling: Try again
Gee, something was missing in the coverage of a Commonwealth Court ruling that Pennsylvania's law requiring all voters to produce a photo identification is “unconstitutional on its face.” Think about that for a moment as we detail the decision.
“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the voter ID law does not further this goal,” wrote Judge Bernard McGinley in an opinion released Friday. The judge additionally criticized the state's efforts to educate the public about the law.
“Certainly a vague concern about voter fraud does not rise to a level that justifies the burdens constructed here,” Judge McGinley added.
In short order, all of the usual suspects re-emerged to re-allege that the measure was an attempt by Republicans to suppress minority voting (a contention not supported in McGinley's ruling) and not, as they claimed, to bolster protection of the franchise.
So, what was that missing something? It's the fact that the lead plaintiff in the original case — Viviette Applewhite, 93, a black Philadelphia woman — had no trouble whatsoever obtaining her photo voter ID card in August 2012. Oh, the “burden.”
The administration of Gov. Tom Corbett can either appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court or the state Legislature can retool the legislation to address McGinley's concerns. But the bottom line is that voter ID should not be abandoned. For protecting the franchise benefits everyone.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Sunday pops
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement