Skip to content

Pennsylvania’s Voter I.D. Law and the National Voting Rights War

March 15, 2012

This morning, Governor Corbett signed one of the nation’s strictest voter-identification laws. It requires voters to present photo i.d. that meet strict criteria at every election. In contrast, Pennsylvania’s prior law allowed other forms of i.d., including utility bills and government checks, and was required only the first time a person voted at a new polling place. The new law purports to guard against voter impersonation, thereby vindicating the “one person, one vote” principle of Baker v. Carr. However, critics—among them the ACLU, AARP and NAACP—counter that creating an additional barrier to voting impinges upon the right to vote, which the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed “fundamental” because it is “preservative of all rights.”

Despite the success of the bill’s proponents, the facts powerfully favor the opposition. The bill’s proponents, including Governor Corbett, acknowledge the lack of evidence that voter impersonation is a problem. Indeed, the bi-partisan County Commissioners of Pennsylvania opposed the bill, noting that systems to deter voter fraud are already in place and that the new bill will cause new problems, such as longer lines at the polls and voter confusion. Philadelphia City Commission chair Stephanie Singer, who runs city elections, notes that the best impersonation prevention tools are poll worker training, data forensics, and investigation of voter rolls.

To add insult to injury, this ineffectual solution to an unproven problem will cost taxpayers between four and eleven million dollars. That’s a small slice of the budget, but it’s a significant additional expense when the state budget has been slashed to the bone. For example, the $4.3 million low estimate for the law’s budgetary cost is roughly equal to recent state cuts to funding of libraries and adult literacy.

Even worse, marginalized and underserved communities are the most likely to be disenfranchised by the new law. For example, 18% of the elderly do not have photo i.d., according to Karen Buck of the Senior Law Project. Indeed, concerns over the disparate impact of voter-i.d. requirements has led the U.S. Department of Justice to take the rare step of denying approval to laws in South Carolina and Texas, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Likewise, a state court in Wisconsin has invalidated a voter i.d. law in that state, declaring, “Voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed they are two heads on the same monster.”

Concerns over the adverse effects of the law have particular force given Governor Corbett’s campaign-trail remarks suggesting he favors vote suppression efforts. Indeed, Wesley Payne—a member of the Bar Association’s Board of Governors cabinet—has thoughtfully analogized the law to pernicious voting barriers of yesteryear. He asked whether there is a meaningful difference between the speculative threat of voter impersonation and the imaginary ills addressed by earlier invidiously discriminatory voting hurdles, such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

Our nation’s history has been one of increasing inclusivity in the democracy-affirming grant of franchise. We have lowered or removed barriers to vote along lines of religion, socioeconomic status, race, sex and age. In the U.S., the only persons still categorically excluded from voting are children, the clinically insane, and some criminals. We cannot now legitimately justify exclusion from the vote of marginalized citizens—such as seniors, racial minorities, and the poor—in the name of an imagined threat.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. March 16, 2012 2:07 am

    Joshu — what an excellent post: concise, broad, and deep all at once. I shudder for the poor poll workers and judges of election who will have to deal with literally thousands of irate citizens who were unaware of the change and so did not bring their ID to the polls. It’s a sad day for democracy when the incumbents pass a voting bill they know will cause more problems than it solves.

  2. nicole mac permalink
    March 22, 2012 10:35 pm

    Joshu – While you know I disagree (respectfully), I’ll be curious to ask my polling station their take, though I guess if my theory holds true(lots of fraudulent voting goes on) they are in on it! Always like reading your posts.

  3. jlharrisesq permalink
    March 30, 2012 5:00 am

    Nicole—Thanks for reading and commenting. It may be that you are correct about voter impersonation, although I have not encountered any claims thereof, substantiated or otherwise, in my election integrity work at the DAO. I certainly don’t oppose carefully designed legislative action to remedy problems substantiated by legislative fact-finding. But what we have here is a multi-million dollar expenditure ostensibly directed at a speculative problem unsupported by any evidence. Even worse, as I noted in the post, election integrity experts regard the best tools for preventing voter impersonation to be poll worker training, data forensics, and investigation of voter rolls. Voter i.d. requirements are not only needlessly expensive but also have been shown to have broad disenfranchising effects, disproportionately impacting politically vulnerable demographics, especially seniors, students, and the poor. Stay tuned for a follow-up post on this topic.

  4. November 26, 2014 10:04 pm

    Free info like this is an apple from the tree of kngeoedlw. Sinful?


  1. Pa. Adopts Voter ID Law | | 3/15/12 | Vinh P. Su, Esquire
  2. Early Signs That PA Voter I.D. Law Is Already Wreaking Havoc « PhiLAWdelphia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: