No to ID
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Feb. 3, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania applauds Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley for his ruling to permanently enjoin Pennsylvania's voter ID law.
The decision means that the hundreds of thousands of state voters who lack ID no longer have to worry about this restrictive law obstructing their right to vote. The league, one of the plaintiffs in the case, wants all citizens to actively participate in our government. By upholding voting rights, the judge ruled on the side of the people of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs argued that the voter ID law would disenfranchise droves of Pennsylvania voters lacking the required forms of ID. The law was most onerous for the elderly, people with disabilities and low-income voters. All would have had to travel to one of only 71 PennDOT locations to obtain identification.
Attorneys also showed the state's misleading “education” campaign caused widespread confusion for both voters and poll worker and the state was simply unable to get IDs to the people who needed them. And as state officials admitted, no evidence of in-person voter fraud exists.
If upheld, this law would have had catastrophic consequences by undermining access to voting. The ruling is a victory for all Pennsylvanians and the integrity of our democracy.
Susan J. Carty
The writer is the president of League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania.
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.
- Slots & property taxes
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Medicaid’s future
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Proven success
- Drought answer?
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Funding priorities questioned