Judge strikes down Pa. voter ID law

A Pennsylvania judge on Friday struck down a requirement that nearly all of the state's 8.2 million voters show photo identification at the polls, saying it imposes an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that officials failed to demonstrate the need for it.

McGinley, a Democrat, said the law is unconstitutional because it does not require that a valid photo ID be convenient and available to voters.

"As a constitutional prerequisite, any voter ID law must contain a mechanism for ensuring liberal access to compliant photo ID's so that the requirement ... does not disenfranchise valid voters," state Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley wrote in a decision that sets the stage for a potential courtroom showdown before the state's highest court.

"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," McGinley wrote.

Gov. Tom Corbett declined to comment, saying he had not reviewed the 103-page ruling. His lawyer, James Schultz, said they could seek a review by the full Commonwealth Court or appeal directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The law, one of the strictest in the nation, was approved by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed by the Republican governor in March 2012 over the protests of every single Democratic lawmaker.

Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe, a Butler County Republican who sponsored the original, more stringent bill, called the decision "an activist ruling by a partisan Democrat judge." 

The photo ID requirement had been blocked from being enforced pending resolution of the constitutional challenge.

Friday's ruling did not strike down the entire law, but it prohibits enforcement of the photo ID requirement that is its central element.

Lawyer Witold J. Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped lead the legal challenge, said "the act was plainly revealed to be nothing more than a voter-suppression tool."

Pennsylvania's Democratic leaders charged that the law was a cynical attempt by Republicans to suppress balloting by seniors, minorities and other Democratic-leaning groups in the last presidential election. Republicans called it an election-security measure, though administration officials acknowledged that they knew of no examples of voter impersonation.

Lawyers for the state defended the law, arguing that a multimillion-dollar publicity campaign in 2012 and the refinement of the special voting-only card by the Pennsylvania Department of State educated voters about the law's requirements and ensured that any registered voter who lacks an appropriate ID could get one.

In his ruling, McGinley said the special card was a "creation" of the state Department of Transportation that is not authorized in the law and is "fraught with illegalities and dubious authority."

The voting-only IDs were distributed through the state Department of Transportation's licensing centers. The judge said that was an inconvenience for voters.

"In contrast to 9,300 polling places, to obtain an ID for voting purposes, a qualified elector must overcome the barrier of transport and travel to one of PennDOT's 71 (licensing centers) during limited hours," he said.

Friday's ruling in Pennsylvania came a day after Congress took consideration of legislation on national voting rights.

On Thursday, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. Congress to modernize elements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that gutted a core part of the landmark law.

The legislation would provide a new formula to determine if any state or locality – not just those with a history of racial discrimination – should be required to obtain prior federal approval to changes in its election rules.

A top Republican, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, joined two Democrats – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan – to take the lead in drafting the measure.

Backers predicted congressional passage, possibly before November elections.

But it was unclear when the Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives, which have clashed on most issues in recent years, would take it up.

The measure is the result of a divided Supreme Court ruling in June on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a centerpiece of the U.S. civil rights movement.

The high court struck down the requirement that nine states, mostly in the South, obtain prior federal approval because of their history of racial discrimination.

The court declared that Congress, in updating the law in 2006, had used outdated facts in deciding that these states must continue to get federal pre-clearance for election law changes.

In doing so, the court challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect minority voters where discrimination persists rather than target former slaveholding southern states.

Under the Voting Rights Act Amendment of 2014, states would need prior federal approval to change election laws if they had five or more violations of federal law in the previous 15 years.

A jurisdiction would need federal approval if it had three or more violations in the previous 15 years or has had one violation and "persistent and extremely low minority voter turnout."

The bill was introduced in the House and Senate.

"Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to ensure that no American would be denied his or her constitutional right to vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color," Leahy said.

"We believe that this is a strong bipartisan bill that accomplishes this goal and that every member of Congress can support," Leahy added.

Wire services