Penn. Judge Refuses to Block Controversial Voter ID Law
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled not to block a controversial voter ID law on Wednesday, which critics have said could disenfranchise as many as 750,000 registered voters.
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled not to block a controversial voter ID law on Wednesday, which critics have said could disenfranchise as many as 750,000 registered voters.
"I just can't believe it," Viviette Applewhite, of Philadelphia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous."
Brentin Mock writes on ColorLines that "despite the fact that an untold number of Pennsylvania citizens lack ID -- most estimates range in the hundreds of thousands -- that the state's own governor and secretary of state didn't know the details of the law, a state legislator admitting the law would throw the election to Mitt Romney, and testimony that thousands of African Americans and Latinos would be unfairly burdened by the law, Judge Robert Simpson rejected many of the arguments made against the law, particularly that it violated the state's constitutional protection of the right to vote."
Groups have vowed to appeal the decision.
"We're not done, it's not over," said Witold J. Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who helped argue the case for the plaintiffs. "It's why they make appeals courts."
The judge's ruling in the case is available here (pdf).
Vote suppression tactics haven't been limited to Pennsylvania. In a recent report, the Brennan Center for Justice documented restrictive voter ID laws in effect in ten states putting the right to vote of at least half a million eligible voters at risk.
* * *
In an episode of Moyers & Company, Bill Moyers spoke with Keesha Gaskins and Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice about how voter ID laws enable voting suppression.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled not to block a controversial voter ID law on Wednesday, which critics have said could disenfranchise as many as 750,000 registered voters.
"I just can't believe it," Viviette Applewhite, of Philadelphia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous."
Brentin Mock writes on ColorLines that "despite the fact that an untold number of Pennsylvania citizens lack ID -- most estimates range in the hundreds of thousands -- that the state's own governor and secretary of state didn't know the details of the law, a state legislator admitting the law would throw the election to Mitt Romney, and testimony that thousands of African Americans and Latinos would be unfairly burdened by the law, Judge Robert Simpson rejected many of the arguments made against the law, particularly that it violated the state's constitutional protection of the right to vote."
Groups have vowed to appeal the decision.
"We're not done, it's not over," said Witold J. Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who helped argue the case for the plaintiffs. "It's why they make appeals courts."
The judge's ruling in the case is available here (pdf).
Vote suppression tactics haven't been limited to Pennsylvania. In a recent report, the Brennan Center for Justice documented restrictive voter ID laws in effect in ten states putting the right to vote of at least half a million eligible voters at risk.
* * *
In an episode of Moyers & Company, Bill Moyers spoke with Keesha Gaskins and Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice about how voter ID laws enable voting suppression.
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled not to block a controversial voter ID law on Wednesday, which critics have said could disenfranchise as many as 750,000 registered voters.
"I just can't believe it," Viviette Applewhite, of Philadelphia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous."
Brentin Mock writes on ColorLines that "despite the fact that an untold number of Pennsylvania citizens lack ID -- most estimates range in the hundreds of thousands -- that the state's own governor and secretary of state didn't know the details of the law, a state legislator admitting the law would throw the election to Mitt Romney, and testimony that thousands of African Americans and Latinos would be unfairly burdened by the law, Judge Robert Simpson rejected many of the arguments made against the law, particularly that it violated the state's constitutional protection of the right to vote."
Groups have vowed to appeal the decision.
"We're not done, it's not over," said Witold J. Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who helped argue the case for the plaintiffs. "It's why they make appeals courts."
The judge's ruling in the case is available here (pdf).
Vote suppression tactics haven't been limited to Pennsylvania. In a recent report, the Brennan Center for Justice documented restrictive voter ID laws in effect in ten states putting the right to vote of at least half a million eligible voters at risk.
* * *
In an episode of Moyers & Company, Bill Moyers spoke with Keesha Gaskins and Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice about how voter ID laws enable voting suppression.