Editorials: Pennsylvania Voter ID Bill



Halting of Voter ID Law is a Risky Move in a Close Election
By: Erin Worbs

While many are celebrating last Tuesday’s controversial ruling on
Pennsylvania’s Voter I.D. Law, P.L. 195, No. 18 (Act 18), this is not a
victory for voters. Although the judge’s ruling did not in fact end this
law, it did prevent it from going into effect until after this year’s
Election Day.  Despite an extreme amount of negative press that has come
out in protest of this law, it is not nearly as extremist or radical as
some people may think.  It simply requires voters to show a valid form of
photo identification when they vote.

To be completely honest, prior to this law getting all of this attention,
I had no idea that identification was not already required to vote
everywhere in the United States. The last two times I went to vote (in
2010 and 2011) I was asked to show my ID which I gladly did, because I
thought I had to. If you are in fact a citizen of the United States there
is no reason for you not to have state issued identification. And, despite
many peoples’ misconceptions, this does not require having a driver’s
license. Pitt students, for example, would not have been affected by this
law at all because our student IDs are valid forms of identification. And
those who are not students and do not have a license can simply go to the
DMV to apply for an identification card. This process is not difficult and
is recommended for all citizens without licenses, regardless of voting
implications.

Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law is not a form of voter disenfranchisement
because it is simply requiring something that all U.S. citizens have the
ability and right to obtain. Therefore, it does not discriminate against
any group, and I do not believe that it would end up favoring either party
because, like I previously mentioned, all citizens, regardless of
political party, socioeconomic status, age, gender, or race, have the
right to identification, as long as they go through the proper steps to
obtain it.

The judge that issued the ruling agreed with most of my previously
mentioned points, so he did not overturn the law, but simply postponed it
from going into effect until after Election Day. His reasoning was that he
did not believe people had an adequate amount of time to obtain
identification. I do not agree with this, as this law has been discussed
for several months, and there has been a pretty extensive media campaign
by the state of Pennsylvania advising citizens to get ID if they wanted to
vote.  With this being the year of a presidential election, as well as a
race for a few different Pennsylvania seats in Congress, voter fraud is a
very legitimate concern. There is no way of telling how close these
elections will be, and I would prefer not to risk any cases of voter fraud
as it is very possible that (especially with Pennsylvania being a swing
state) this year’s election could be very similar to the 2000 presidential
election in which every single vote cast in Florida made a huge impact and
the entire election could have been changed with just a few hundred votes.
 Without requiring identification, voter fraud is simply made easier for
the few individuals that choose to disregard our electoral process and
commit that crime.

I hope for the sake of this year’s election, and for our government, that
I am wrong and that the postponement of this law will not result in
increased voter fraud, but I am glad that voter identification will be
required in future elections.

Citizens’ Representative Rights Upheld in Voter ID Ruling

By: Kevin Kerr

Tuesday’s ruling on the state’s controversial Voter I.D. Law, P.L. 195,
No. 18 (Act 18), serves to uphold the natural rights of citizens to elect
their representatives.  This is done in a manner that has been used with a
great deal of success for decades in this country.  I applaud the courts
decision that, most importantly, citizens do not have an appropriate
amount of time to obtain such forms of identification in order to be
permitted to vote.

Voter fraud, although statistically a very minor problem, is not something
that we should entirely ignore.  I do agree with the fact that a
discussion should take place on how to prevent such measures from
occurring, but a last minute, admittedly politically motivated decision is
not the way to accomplish that.  Over time, a voter identification law
could serve its purpose with ample clarity and bipartisan support in tying
up the loose ends of the concept.  Advertising the requirement will need
to be far more effective.  Publicizing and clarifying the specifics of
identification requirements will need to be far more effective.  People
will need to know exactly what to do and have the time to do it.

Again, the idea that identification should be required to vote is not a
completely outrageous one; but the idea that it can be implemented in such
a short period of time is.  Methods of informing voters were ineffective
and hasty and identification requirements were unclear for quite some
time, especially in regards to student voters. Last, and most importantly,
the law’s design stood to have a very serious political impact on
citizens’ representation and the outcome of the elections this November. 
As Representative Mike Turzai said, “Voter ID will allow Governor Romney
to win Pennsylvania.”

No thank you, Congressman. I’d rather have the voters make that decision,
and because of this ruling, they still can.