Pennsylvania

Educating Voters on a Law in Limbo: An Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Election Law Society · January 6, 2014 ·

By Joshua Bohn

Due to a preliminary injunction on Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law arising from Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth, the 2013 Pennsylvania off-year general election occurred without being subject to the requirements of the law. As of this date, the judge responsible for issuing this preliminary injunction is still in the process of deliberating. This does not mean, however, that questions about Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID Law have dropped out of the public eye. On the contrary, the government of Pennsylvania and its agencies have spent a significant amount of money advertising the Voter ID Law. Pennsylvania’s Department of State brought back a new variant of its “show it” TV commercials from the 2012 election for this off-year general election. Critics opposed the ad campaign for being a costly use of state funds, and for having a potential to confuse would-be voters—especially if the court refuses to lift the injunction. Governor Tom Corbett and his administration defended the ad campaign; a spokesman argued that the commercials contain useful information in the event that the Voter ID Law is upheld.

An Extended Vacation for Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law

Election Law Society · November 20, 2013 ·

by Joshua Bohn, Contributor

On August 16, 2013, Pennsylvania Judge Bernard McGinley issued a preliminary injunction to block Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law from affecting Pennsylvania elections in November. This preliminary injunction was the result of a lawsuit, Applewhite v. Commonwealth. Though the trial concluded on July 31, 2013, the judge is still deliberating on whether a permanent injunction is appropriate. However, the preliminary injunction made it clear that Pennsylvania voters will not be required to show poll workers photo identification in order to vote in the 2013 November general election. The injunction also restricted the voter ID law’s “soft rollout” features. These features would have required poll workers to inform voters that they would need photo ID to vote in the next election. The judge’s recent preliminary injunction does away with this requirement. Poll workers may still ask to see photo ID, but the voters still do not have to produce it in order to vote. [Read more…] about An Extended Vacation for Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law

The Battleground 2012: ID Required to Vote! No Scratch That, Not Until Next Year

Election Law Society · November 5, 2012 ·

by Jenna Poligo

On October 2, 2012 Judge Robert Simpson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s photo identification requirement for the upcoming election. Judge Simpson, however, required the state to continue its 5 million dollar voter education program. In addition, the injunction does not bar the state from requiring poll workers to request identification prior to voters casting a vote. The injunction merely prohibits the state from preventing registered voters from voting if they fail to produce identification when asked on Election Day.

The continuation of the voter education program combined with the ability to ask voters to produce identification prior to voting runs the risk of creating serious confusion among voters. In addition, the continued message to voters that valid identification is necessary to vote may deter many would-be voters from participating in this election. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: ID Required to Vote! No Scratch That, Not Until Next Year

Voter ID squabbles continue in Pennsylvania

Election Law Society · September 7, 2012 ·

by Patrick Genova

Starting this November voters in Pennsylvania will face stricter ID requirements at polling stations. A new law requires a voter to present an ID from a list of approved forms of identification each time before casting a ballot. Proponents of the new law, such as PA’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett, say the law will reduce fraud, but the new push for voter ID has many opponents asking about ulterior motives.

An Arizona State University, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism study found that voter impersonation occurred at a rate of only 1 in 15 million for in-person voting. By comparison, the PA Department of State and Transportation estimates that 9% of Pennsylvania’s eligible voters do not meet ID requirements. Analysts at the Brennan Center also point out that a five year prison sentence and $10,000 fine for each count of voter fraud makes it “a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election.” [Read more…] about Voter ID squabbles continue in Pennsylvania

Fashion Frenzy: Passive Electioneering and the Right to Vote

Election Law Society · April 4, 2012 ·

by Latisha Woodford

On Election Day, after you have rushed to the polls, how would you feel to be turned away because of your apparel? The regulation of voter apparel posed a real issue for residents in Pennsylvania. Residents of the state were prohibited from voting because they were wearing T-shirts endorsing candidates for office in the polling place. Subsequently, the electioneering battlegrounds were drawn, and the effects on the right to vote involved passive electioneering. Passive electioneering refers to the method of influencing voters by wearing campaign t-shirts or carrying pamphlets to the voting location.

Section 1220(c) of the Pennsylvania election code prohibits electioneering but the state law does not define the term. Subsequently, defining the scope of the term has been left to the individual interpretation of the County Boards of Elections. Local counties have interpreted the term differently. Many Pennsylvania counties, including Philadelphia and Allegheny, have long allowed voters to vote wearing clothing, stickers, and buttons endorsing candidates and there have been no disruptions or significant problems. These counties follow the recommendations of the Pennsylvania Department of State. In a memorandum to the County Boards of Election the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State recommended that voters be allowed to electioneer by passive methods. The Department believes that as long as the voters take no additional steps to attempt to influence voters in the polling place the right of the franchise should not be denied.

The memorandum resulted in pending litigation. The result of the pending case, Kraft v. Harhut, should end the statewide debate. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU) seeks to join the Commonwealth in challenging any effort to enforce a statewide dress code for voters. The ACLU does not endorse a narrow interpretation of the term electioneering. The ACLU opined that sustaining a narrow interpretation would implicate the First Amendment free speech rights. The primary concern of the ACLU is not to turn a registered voter away from the polls as well as the possibility of the rule to be applied in a discriminatory fashion. Nevertheless Lawrence County observes a narrow interpretation. The county will not allow passive electioneering and has turned away voters dressed in party endorsing apparel.

The argument for the implementation of a statewide dress code will rest heavily on the lower court’s interpretation of the state law. Lawrence County does not wish to make a distinction for lesser forms of electioneering. Also the pending lawsuit claims that allowing voters to wear partisan–affiliated clothing would affect the health and safety of voters. These arguments certainly may pass muster. The Supreme Court has historically held that restricting free speech at a polling place may be necessary to make sure voters may freely exercise a right to vote for the candidate of their choice. It is also well–established that the state has the right to protect voters from any confusion and undue influence within the polling place.

Whether party-endorsing apparel promotes an unsafe environment for voters remains unanswered. How the court will strike a balance remains questionable.

Latisha Woodford is a second-year student at William and Mary Law.

Permalink: http://stateofelections.pages.wm.edu/?p=4302

maneuver over here