The week in the War on Voting: Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears appeal in photo-ID ruling

As has been the case for several weeks now, this week delivered some good news and bad news and wait-and-see news in the voter suppression department.

First up was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's hearing of oral arguments Thursday in an appeal over the state's restrictive voter-ID law. The court didn't say when a ruling will be issued, but observers expect it by the end of September.

The appeal comes from individual plaintiffs as well as the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. In a surprising ruling Aug. 15, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson upheld the voter-ID law that critics and the plaintiffs charged with being discriminatory against the elderly, young voters and minorities. His opinion on the case rested heavily on the state supreme court's 1869 ruling in favor of a law creating two classes of voters in Pennsylvania. You can read about the supporters of the plaintiffs in the voter-ID case here.

Experts have said that from 758,000 to 1.6 million Pennsylvanians might be disenfranchised because they don't have the form of ID the new law requires. Judge Simpson cast those concerns aside.

Ari Berman at The Nation reported that the Supreme Court heading played to a "standing-room-only courtroom" Thursday.

[David Gersch, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs] asked, once again, for an injunction against the law based on three major points: (a) 'the right to vote is a fundamental right' harmed by the law; (b) the voter ID law was not a mere election regulation but something far more significant and burdensome; and (c) the law was not narrowly tailored toward its legislative goal of stopping voter fraud.

Toward that end, Gersch offered three major facts that are central to the case: (1) Pennsylvania has already admitted in court filings that there is no evidence of in-person voter impersonation that a voter ID law would stop; (2) that hundreds of thousands of registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the new voter ID; and (3) that many of these registered voters without voter ID will have difficulty obtaining an ID, either because they can't get, or afford, the underlying documents, like a birth certificate, needed to receive a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) ID or can't easily make it to a PennDOT office, which have limited hours and locations.

Gersch said: 'The vice is not in requiring photo ID. The vice is requiring a photo ID that not everyone has and has trouble getting.'

The court is split evenly, with three Democrats and three Republicans because the fourth Republican was suspended several months ago on charges of corruption. If it were to rule the case 3-3, the Simpson decision would stand. The Democrats asked a lot of questions. With the exception of Justice Robert Saylor, the Republicans did not. Saylor questioned attorneys for the state regarding whether the law guarantees everyone will be able to get the proper ID or at least be able to cast a ballot. They said yes. But plaintiffs' attorneys disagreed.

Berman noted:

Chief Justice Ronald Castille, who overturned the GOP's redistricting plans and is thought to be the swing justice on the court, stayed mostly silent and appeared irritated, at times, with the outspoken Democrats. 'We got three votes but that doesn't help us,' Vic Walczak, legal director for the Pennsylvania ACLU, told me after the hearing. 'We need a fourth.'

(Continue reading about the war on voting below the fold.)