Midweek in the War on Voting: The courts in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and more

It sounds as if the judge reviewing his previous ruling upholding Pennsylvania's overly restrictive voter-ID law is preparing to change his mind. On Tuesday, Judge Robert Simpson concluded a hearing of arguments in the case with: "I think it's possible there could be an injunction entered here. I need some input from people who have been thinking about this longer than I have."

In what many voter advocates had called a shocking decision, Simpson decided in mid-August that the voter-ID law, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature on a strictly party-line vote, was not a problem. Earlier this month, the state supreme court sent the case back to him for further review. The underlying message? Try again. And this time, look more seriously at whether this law, if enforced for the upcoming election, will effectively disfranchise lots of voters. And if so, then enjoin it, that is, stop its implementation.

Two of the three Democrats among the six justices on the high court dissented. Their basic argument? Enough evidence already exists to prove the burden of obtaining the mandated forms of acceptable photo-IDs is too onerous for some voters.

The plaintiffs in the case, including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, have argued all along that large numbers of citizens, perhaps more than a million, will find it difficult if not impossible to get a photo-ID in time, and that the weight of doing so falls proportionately harder on the young, the old, minorities and low-income people.

While the judge reevaluates his first take on the legal angle, the political angle continues to motivate organizers working to make sure that voters are registered and have a proper ID so they aren't turned away at the polls.

Blogger NorthPGH Progressive points out what s/he considers one of the main reasons for the voter-ID law:

As many argue across the state of Pennsylvania and nationally about the ridiculous Voter ID Law that was passed in Pennsylvania, the one thing that I haven't heard mentioned is what it really means to the Democratic Party and their candidates. It's all about the money. Forget the arguments about voter suppression, this is all about forcing Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to spend money and time on making sure people have ID. As the Democratic Party spends thousands on making sure voters have Photo ID, they won't be able to spend that money on their message about the middle class.

(Continue reading Midweek in the War on Voting below the fold.)