Lawyers sum up their cases in Pa. voter ID trial
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Lawyers summed up their cases to cap the 12-day trial of Pennsylvania's tough voter-identification law.
Attorney for plaintiffs seeking to overturn the mandatory photo ID requirement and for the state were given an hour Thursday each to make closing arguments before Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley.
There's no word when McGinley will rule.
Jennifer Clarke of Philadelphia's Public Interest Law Center, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team, said the law “unreasonably and unnecessarily” interferes with the right to vote. She cited estimates that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians lack proper IDs and told McGinley, “it's time to put an end to this.”
Arguing for the state, Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok said the plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional and said there are ample opportunities for any voter to get an acceptable ID at no cost.
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.